Congressional Record, Volume 170 Issue 22 (Wednesday, February 7, 2024)

[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 7, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S427-S438]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

______

REMOVING EXTRANEOUS LOOPHOLES INSURING EVERY VETERAN EMERGENCY ACT--
MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 815,
which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 30, H.R. 815, to amend
title 38, United States Code, to make certain improvements
relating to the eligibility of veterans to receive
reimbursement for emergency treatment furnished through the
Veterans Community Care program, and for other purposes.

Recognition of the Majority Leader

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

H.R. 815

Mr. SCHUMER. First, happy birthday, Mr. President. Have a good one. I
hope we all have a good one today.
All right. Today, Mr. President, Senators face a decision several
months in the making: Will Senate Republicans vote to start debate--
just a debate--on bipartisan legislation to strengthen America's
security, stand with Ukraine, and fix our border or will they cower to
Donald Trump's orders to kill this bill? Will the Senate stand up to
brutish thugs like Vladimir Putin and reassure our friends abroad that
America will never abandon them in their hour of need? Will Republicans
take ``yes'' for an answer and seize the best opportunity--the best
opportunity--that Congress has seen in decades to secure our border?
This is the choice Republicans face today. They can either choose what
is good for the country's national interest or they can choose what is
good, at least in their minds, for Donald Trump.
I have always believed the Senate works best when we take the
bipartisan path. Not everything is perfect in this bill, but I see it
as my job to let bipartisanship take hold whenever possible, and this
bill reflects that. But all week long, Senate Republicans have looked
more and more like their House counterparts and transformed themselves
into the chaos caucus. Republicans have said they can't pass Ukraine
without border. Now they say they can't pass Ukraine with border. So,
today, I am giving them a choice. They can show America where they
stand and what they stand for. Which way will it be?
Today, I have laid out both options for Republicans to do the right
thing. Democrats certainly want to fix the border. It is extremely
important, and we have shown our willingness time and time again to
take big steps to secure the border, but we will move forward today
with either option.

[[Page S428]]

First, I have scheduled a vote on the supplemental that includes
strong bipartisan border reforms that Republicans have demanded for
months. Negotiators on both sides worked themselves to the bone putting
this border package together. I was heavily involved. I saw the work--
the blood, the sweat, the tears--that went into it. Why did we do it?
Because that is what Republicans wanted. They said: Can't do Ukraine,
can't do Israel, can't do humanitarian aid without border.
I made sure negotiators had enough time to do their work. I gave them
the space to keep going, even when it seemed like a deal was out of
reach, because, again, Democrats want to secure the border because it
is extremely important. It is urgent. It can't wait. We must act. We
are ready to move forward on this bill now.
Today, when we vote, it will be clear as day who is serious about
fixing the border and who is not. I urge Republicans to take ``yes''
for an answer.
If Republicans block this national security package with border
legislation that they demanded, later today, I will give them the
opportunity to move forward with a package without border reforms. This
package will otherwise be largely the same. It will have strong funding
for Ukraine, funding for Israel, help for innocent civilians in Gaza,
and funding to the Indo-Pacific.
The legislation on the floor today is one of the most important
security packages the Senate has considered in a very long time. So the
onus is on Senate Republicans to finally take ``yes'' for an answer.
It would be an embarrassment for our country--an absolute nightmare
for the Republican Party--if they reject national security funding
twice in one day. Today is the day for Republicans to do the right
thing when it comes to our national security.
Now, it must be----
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, would my friend from New York yield----
Mr. SCHUMER. No, I will not.
Mr. WICKER.--just for a question about----
Mr. SCHUMER. Not now. I am in the middle of my speech.
Now, Mr. President, it must be said that the 180-turn Republicans
have done on border is one of the most stunning things I have seen
Congress in a long, long time do. The damage Republicans have done this
week to their credibility cannot be understated.
After all, how many times have we heard our Republicans colleagues
give speeches here on the floor about the emergency at the border? How
many times have we heard Republicans say, year after year, that
Congress must act, that legislation is the only long-term solution?
They have said that: Legislation is the way we have to go.
How many times have we seen Republicans take field trips down to the
border, like Eagle Pass or Laredo, and take pictures with the fence
towering behind them, while bemoaning that the problem at the border is
only getting worse?
Apparently, that was all for show. Apparently, Republicans aren't
actually serious about fixing the border, because you cannot--you
cannot--claim to be serious about fixing the border while voting
against the kind of border package we have before us today. You cannot
claim to truly care about fixing asylum if you are going to vote
against the biggest updates to asylum law in decades.
You cannot claim to care about our Border Patrol agents while
depriving them of the very tools and funding they are asking for.
Remember, the union of Border Patrol agents--a very conservative,
almost always pro-Republican group--wants us to pass this bill.
Why are we doing all of this? Why are they going to kill, in one fell
swoop, this agreement that has taken months to piece together?
The answer--why are the Republicans doing all of this? Why have they
backed off on border when they know it is the right thing to do? Two
words: Donald Trump.
Donald Trump doesn't like that the Senate finally reached a real
bipartisan border deal. So he has demanded Republicans kill it. Let me
say that again because it is as plain as could be. Donald Trump doesn't
like that the Senate finally reached a bipartisan border deal. So he
has demanded Republicans kill it. He thinks it is far better to keep
the border in chaos so he can exploit it for personal political great
gains.
Senate Republicans--vertebrae nowhere to be found--are ready to
blunder away our best chance of fixing the border in order to elevate
what they see as the interests of Donald Trump above the interests of
the country.
I expected this kind of cynical nonsense from the far-right House
MAGA Republicans, but it is shameful and embarrassing to see MAGA
radicalism take hold here in the Senate.
No matter how today shapes out, I hope Republicans end up doing the
right thing when it comes to national security, before the day is done,
and agree to move forward on those things they do support, because if
there is one other person besides Donald Trump who is rooting for chaos
in the Senate, it is Vladimir Putin.
If we fail in this moment, if we abandon our friends in Ukraine to
Vladimir Putin, history will cast a shameful and permanent shadow on
Senators who block funding. It is a matter of the highest national
urgency that we get this right.
Remember what Putin said 2 months ago about American aid to Ukraine:

[T]he free stuff is going to run out some day, and it seems
it already has.

That is Vladimir Putin taunting the Senate, taunting America. We have
a chance today to make him regret those words.
Republicans of decades past would have never hesitated to support
funding for nations like Ukraine. In previous generations, both parties
would have bent Heaven and Earth to stand up to Russian dictators. I
can hear Ronald Reagan giving a speech passionately asking the Senate
to vote for aid to Ukraine. We spent half a century safeguarding the
free world against the malicious spread of communism, against tyranny,
against those who have tried to undermine our values.
Those very same issues--of Western democracy, of the sovereignty of
free nations, of the safety of our troops and our citizens--are on the
line yet again in the 21st century. They are the very things that
stitch this supplemental together. It is why we are here with this bill
before us in the first place.
There is only one right answer for the Senate today to address the
great challenges we face. There is only one path forward to fulfill our
obligations to the American people. There is only one way Senators--
Democrats and Republicans, both sides of the aisle--should vote today,
and that is for us to move forward on the package of national security.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I wonder if the majority leader would
yield for a question on schedule?
Mr. SCHUMER. No questions.
Mr. WICKER. Well, may I say something on just this quick point, Mr.
President? My question to the Democratic leader was about the way he
intends to proceed.
Obviously, he has counted the votes, as we have on this side, and the
package with the border provision will not pass. Then he intends to
move to a package that does not contain the border provision.
My question to the distinguished leader would have been: Does he
intend to negotiate an amendment process where Members from both sides
of the aisle would be able to propose changes in the legislation? And
how will that affect when we go forward and when we are able to deal
with these important issues that he has advocated for so vigorously?
Those would have been my questions, and I think the American people and
the Senate deserve an answer on how we are going to proceed, and will
there be an open process of amendments?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, after listening to the majority leader's
comments, I think it is worth taking 5 minutes to recall how we got
here.
You know, it is ironic to me that people give speeches here on the
floor of the Senate about their support for Israel. And there is no
doubt Israel is involved in an existential fight with Iran and Iranian
proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, the Houthi rebels, and the Shia
militias in Syria and Iraq.
But the House passed an Israel aid package on November 2. Israel was
attacked October 7. The House acted on

[[Page S429]]

November 2, and the majority leader, who is the only one who can
schedule a vote on anything here on the Senate floor, has done nothing
to help our best ally and friend in the Middle East, the State of
Israel--nothing.
He has insisted that we package together aid to Ukraine, aid to the
Indo-Pacific. And there have been endless discussions about a border
bill, which I will come to in a moment. But this problem that we are
running into is one of his own creation.
He could decide to take up these bills individually, knowing that the
House has already passed an Israel aid bill, and then have the Senate
take it up and pass that bill. Then we can turn to the other issues
that are vitally important to our national security and deserve fulsome
debate and an open amendment process.
That is the question my friend from Mississippi was trying to ask the
majority leader, but he decided to leave the floor without responding
to that, giving me some doubt as to the sincerity of his commitment to
have an open amendment process and actually restore the Senate to its
previously held reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body.
Nobody can call us that now with a straight face.
I understand that the majority leader is trying the best he can to
help the Republican Party. He gives advice freely as to what
Republicans should do. But the fact of the matter is, we have no
confidence--zero confidence--that the Biden administration will enforce
the law when it comes to the border. That has been the case for the
last 3 years, resulting in historically high numbers--300,000 people a
month--showing up at the border, only to be ushered into the interior
by Biden open-border policies that either people claim asylum and are
released into the interior, perhaps never to be heard from again, or
they are released on parole.
Catch-and-release is the policy of the Biden administration and
congressional Democrats. That has proven to be a powerful magnet for
illegal immigration--people literally coming from all around the world
because they know they can make it into the country because President
Biden and Senate Democrats have laid out the welcome mat.
So you will have to forgive me when I note the fake outrage, the
phony messaging that we hear from Democrats about this border
negotiation. Yes, it is true that we hoped to come up with something
credible. On our side of the aisle, Senator Lankford from Oklahoma has
done a heroic and a thankless job of trying to come up with a
negotiated package. But the fact of the matter is, the package includes
catch-and-release still, providing additional or continued incentives
for people to come to the country illegally, knowing they will be
released into the interior; and it does nothing to stop the Biden
administration from abusing something called parole, which means that,
in order to avoid bad press, in order to avoid embarrassing TV pictures
of an overwhelmed border, they simply just release people into the
interior of the country for 2 years and give them a work permit.
Are you kidding me? They now claim to be the defenders of the border
and for border security? What a joke. What a joke. And it is a bad
joke.
We know, as a result, the Biden border policy, supported day in and
day out by our Democratic colleagues for the entire time that President
Biden has been in office, has resulted in roughly 7 million migrants
being released into the interior of the United States, and 1.7 million
``got-aways''--what the Border Patrol calls them, people evading law
enforcement, for good reason, I suspect. Either they are transporting
illegal drugs into the interior of the United States or, maybe, just
maybe, out of that 1.7 million, there are a few people who are on the
Terrorist Watchlist.
We know the Border Patrol has detained roughly 170--I think, at last
count--people on the Terrorist Watchlist. That is the people they know
about. But they can't tell us how many more people on the Terrorist
Watchlist are among those ``got-aways,'' endangering the safety and
security of the United States.
It took 19 people to kill 3,000 Americans on 9/11. What about 1.7
million ``got-aways''? We don't know whether these are serial
criminals. We don't know whether they are transporting drugs. We don't
know whether they are terrorists. We don't know anything about them,
and, frankly, President Biden doesn't care--and neither do our Senate
colleagues who have done zero--nothing, nada--to deal with this
problem. So you will have to forgive me if I find their fake outrage
unconvincing.
And then there are the 108,000 Americans who died of drug overdoses
last year. That is also part of the Biden open border policies. I have
been wearing since April of last year a rubber bracelet given to me by
a father of a young woman who lost her life because she took a pill
that she thought was relatively innocuous but was laced with fentanyl.
Her name was Sienna. Her father asked me to wear this rubber bracelet
that says: ``One pill can kill.''
Well, 71,000 Americans died last year as a result of fentanyl
poisoning, including young women like Sienna, who took something they
thought was relatively innocuous, which was a counterfeit pill laced
with fentanyl--and not waking up the next morning.
And then perhaps the greatest untold story--we tried to tell the
story, and the New York Times has written about this--is the hundreds
of thousands of unaccompanied children who have been placed with
sponsors in the interior of the United States who have come across the
border. They have been attracted like a magnet to our border and under
Biden policy have been released to sponsors, many of whom aren't even
immediate relatives.
And the Biden administration has simply lost track of them. They
can't tell you whether the 300,000 children are going to school,
whether they are getting the healthcare they need, whether they are
being trafficked for sex, whether they are being forced into
involuntary labor. The New York Times has written at least two times
that I recall about forced labor conditions for these migrant
children--forced into illegal, dangerous labor.
And the New York Times tried to call some of these sponsors to see if
they knew about what these children were doing, these children who were
turned over to the care of these sponsors by the Biden administration
under their current policies. In 85,000 cases--85,000 cases--there was
no answer.
So the truth is, under the Biden border policies, under the policies
supported by all of our Democratic colleagues--now who are
demonstrating fake outrage about the failure of the current border
bill--they simply don't care. They don't care about these children.
They don't care about the families grieving lost loved ones as a result
of the illegal drugs that stream across the border, carried by the very
criminal organizations that smuggle people from around the world who
show up at our border and are released into the interior of the United
States.
What greater incentive can you think of for attracting illegal
immigration than the open border policies which, tragically, result in
the death of innocent Americans, including innocent children, losing
300,000 children placed with sponsors? The Biden administration doesn't
care.
So let me just say that when the majority leader takes off his hat as
the majority leader of this great institution and puts on his hat as a
Democratic partisan making political attacks against the very people he
is hoping will support the legislation that he is advocating for--aid
to Ukraine--this is not a good day for this institution. And it strikes
me as a bizarre tactic when you know who the hundred people are who are
going to be voting on the legislation that he is going to put on the
floor.
And the fact that the majority leader walks away from a legitimate
question by our colleague the Senator from Mississippi who asked
whether there will be an opportunity for debate and votes on
amendments--he won't even answer the question. This is the same
majority leader who put this bill on the floor that we will be voting
on at 1 o'clock and said, ``OK, we released the text,'' on Sunday night
and that in 72 hours Senators are going to have to vote on it.
These are detailed, complex negotiations that have been taking place
for months now, and the majority leader won't even give the Senate and
Senators time to digest it and understand

[[Page S430]]

it. I think that tells you all you need to know about his motives. This
is all about partisan political attacks and posturing leading up to the
November 2024 election.
President Biden is guilty of some of the same posturing. He said--
this is rich--after Secretary Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, has said time and time again under oath, ``The border is
secure''--well, we knew that was a lie because our eyes did not deceive
us. We could see what was happening at the border. We could listen to
Mayor Adams in New York City, the mayor of Chicago, Governors around
the country, saying: We are being inundated by migrants coming across
the border. And in the case of Mayor Adams, he said it is going to
destroy New York City, even though they are a self-designated sanctuary
city.
Well, all of that has fallen on deaf ears for the last 3 years, and
the Senate majority leader and the President of the United States think
that the American people are so dumb that they haven't seen what has
been going on the last 3 years. They have resisted every single effort
on our part to secure the border, to halt this tsunami of illegal
immigration and illegal drugs. They have resisted all of it.
And now the majority leader would have you believe that he has had a
conversion. This is Saul on the road to Damascus. But I don't believe
it, and I don't believe the American people will believe it because
their common sense, their very eyes and ears tell them something
different, and that is that the Biden administration, Democrats in the
Senate, and the Senate majority leader who came out here crying
crocodile tears over the failure of the border negotiation--they know
it is not true. The American people will not be deceived by this
transparent political pitch suggesting that now they are the champions
of border security.

The President of the United States has every tool he needs--every
tool he needs--to secure the border. The laws that are in effect now
are the same laws that were in effect when President Trump was in
office, and the numbers were dramatically different. In fact, President
Biden's numbers of people coming across the border have exceeded the
number that came during the entire 8 years of the Obama administration
and the entire 4 years of the Trump administration.
So, Mr. President, I know there are others here, including my friend
the Republican leader, who are prepared to speak, so I will sit down.
But I just couldn't help myself, sitting here listening to what the
majority leader was trying to sell, which is so patently ahistorical,
false, and is clearly just partisan political rhetoric trying to
improve what is a very, very damaged reputation when it comes to
dealing with our national security and the border.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.

Supplemental Funding

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 4 months ago, Senate Republicans asked
our colleague from Oklahoma Senator Lankford to take on a pretty tall
order: negotiate serious border security policy with an administration
that had shown no interest in actually securing the border. He put in
an enormous amount of work, and I am very grateful for the persistence
he has shown over many nights, weekends, and a few holidays.
The product he was able to secure earned the endorsement of the
National Border Patrol Council, a sign that you are pointing in the
right direction. But as our colleagues recognize, the agreement does
not have a path to become law. The border crisis that President Biden
invited through his rhetoric and his willful neglect will continue to
challenge the brave men and women of the CPB and ICE and impact
communities across the country, and its effects will follow his legacy
forever.
I wish I could say that a record-setting border crisis was the only
challenge that the President's failures have laid before us, but our
colleagues know as well as I do that that isn't the case. There have
always been aggressive forces seeking to harm America and to challenge
our interests. The very existence of a Western order in which sovereign
nations choose their own leaders has always been an affront to
repressive and aggressive regimes around the world.
But even in the face of serious threats, for large portions of modern
history, the United States has dictated the terms of engagement. For
decades, the world's foremost superpower has been the one doing the
deterring. Not anymore. It is no longer a settled question that America
will meet aggression with overwhelming force or even that we will back
our allies 100 percent.
Take this headline about President Biden's response to the attack
that killed three U.S. soldiers last month:

U.S. Strikes Steer Clear of Iran's Red Lines.

Here is the subhead of another one:

U.S. officials acknowledge that the militias targeted still
retain the majority of their capability to carry out future
attacks.

Oh, here is one more:

Pentagon says it's not planning for a long-term campaign
[against Iran's proxies] in Iraq and Syria.

So, Mr. President, what can the American people--and the entire
world--gather about the Biden administration's approach to the threats
that we face?
First, we know that Iran is deterring America, not the other way
around.
Second, we know that the Commander in Chief has not yet directed the
strongest military in the world even to exercise sufficient force
against expendable proxy terrorists, let alone their Iranian sponsors.
Finally, we know that the Biden administration lacks the resolve to
defeat those who spill American blood.
The Pentagon conceded this week they were not aware that even a
single IRGC officer had been eliminated by their response. Yet
administration officials say this is what sending a message of
deterrence looks like.
Let's be honest here. Do our allies see in this behavior an America
that is willing to impose decisive costs on our adversaries? Do our
adversaries, in turn, see any reason to start changing their calculus?
In the Middle East, we already know the answer. Since the President's
telegraphed ``response'' to the deadly Tower 22 attack, Iran-backed
terrorists have already launched more attacks--from Iraq and Syria to
the Red Sea. Iran and its proxies are undeterred.
But beyond the region, is there any reason to expect that the
President's conduct of foreign policy is causing Putin or Xi to think
again? Not a chance. No doubt, the Commander in Chief's halting
response to Tehran's aggression emboldens Moscow. Russian forces, like
Iran and its proxies, were direct beneficiaries of President Biden's
hesitation and self-deterrence as they escalated their invasion of
Ukraine.
Beijing--after it watched us abandon allies in Afghanistan and
second-guess Israel's response to terrorism--has a reason to doubt that
the United States is well-positioned to rally allies and partners to
resist aggression in the Indo-Pacific. If America fails to stand with
our partners on the frontlines of Europe and the Middle East, we will
shred our credibility with friends in the Indo-Pacific.
So today's strategic competition is more perilous. Support for our
allies is more tenuous. And the security of U.S. personnel and
interests is more questionable than it was 3 years ago.
These are the circumstances in which the Senate must consider some
weighty responsibilities of our own: to invest in the hard power that
the President instinctively shies away from exercising, to commit to
allies that fear being abandoned, and to address the requirements of
long-term competition that becomes more difficult the longer America
neglects its leading role.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, after I complete my remarks, the following
is going to be the schedule of speakers on the floor before the
rollcall vote. It is a bipartisan agreement. I ask unanimous consent
that following my remarks, the following Senators be permitted to speak
prior to the scheduled vote: Senator Lankford of Oklahoma for up to 30
minutes; Senator Murray

[[Page S431]]

of Washington, up to 10 minutes; Senator Sinema of Arizona, up to 15
minutes; and Senator Schumer for up to 5 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Supplemental Funding

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened to the statements that were
made this afternoon on the floor of the Senate, and there were some
omissions of fact which need to be reminded to the people who are
following.
It was 4 months ago when we faced a deadline to come up with
assistance for Ukraine. You know what has been going on there for 2
years: a war fought by the most courageous people I know--the
Ukrainians--against the invasion of Vladimir Putin.
The United States, NATO allies, and many others have been standing
behind Ukrainians, and we knew that they needed additional resources to
continue the battle this year.
Four months ago, the President put together a supplemental
appropriations bill for that purpose. It also addressed the situation
in the Middle East, the Far East, and the looming humanitarian crises
around the world, including Gaza, that needed to be addressed.
We wanted to move on this on a timely basis, but there was an
objection. The objection came from the other side of the aisle,
Republican Senators who said: You need to include border security. What
is happening on our southern border cannot be ignored.
We discussed it for a period of time and then agreed with them. We
were going to work together on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and
Democrats, to change what was happening on America's southern border to
make us safe and to bring order to the situation.
Several of our colleagues were chosen to engage in the negotiations
for this issue.
This is a tough issue. Any issue involving immigration is extremely
difficult. That is why it has been over 30 years since Congress has
passed immigration reform, when we know that the body of laws that
governs our immigration and our border needed attention long ago.
Three Senators, very diverse Senators, were chosen to negotiate an
agreement if they could. They were led by Senator Lankford, James
Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, who was chosen by the Republican
Senate caucus to be their negotiator. Several of my colleagues on the
Republican side of the aisle assured me that he had worked hard at it,
understood the issue, and was prepared to accept this challenge and
responsibility. So Senator Lankford led in that regard. Two other
Senators--Senator Sinema of Arizona, who is characterized as an
Independent Senator at this point in her career, and Senator Chris
Murphy of Connecticut were the second and third Senators who sat down
and started negotiating together.
They put together a package. It took them 4 months. We had to
postpone the negotiations for Christmas and for other breaks that were
normal in the Senate calendar. But they were given wide berth to come
up with an agreement, a bipartisan agreement, and it was announced last
Sunday.
Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, released it on Sunday and
said: I will heed the advice of Senators from both sides of the aisle
that Members should have 72 hours to review this document before they
have to vote on it.
The vote we are talking about this afternoon is that vote, more than
72 hours after this proposed bill was released.
What did this bill do that would gain the support of the Democratic
and Republican Senators who were negotiating? What it did was to
address many issues--primarily border issues--that related to security.
The current situation on our border is unsustainable. We are being
overwhelmed by the number of people who are showing up in record
numbers. That reflects several things--a refugee crisis around the
world.
Those of you who watched ``60 Minutes'' this week noticed that there
were people from China who are now coming to our southern border to
come into the United States. No one anticipated that when we talked
about the asylum laws several years ago, but that is a fact of life.
People are coming from all around the world to come to our southern
border, and they are overwhelming the resources of that border.
This bill--this agreed-to bill, this bipartisan bill--that is being
considered here this afternoon was an effort by both sides to limit the
number of people coming across the border at any given time. It gave
new authority to the President of the United States to cap and limit
the number of people crossing the border at a given time.
When those on the other side say we don't need this bill, that is
legislative authority the President currently doesn't have, and it was
included. There were billions of dollars of investment in technology to
stop the flow of not only those who are undocumented and illegal but
also the flow of fentanyl into the United States, just to name two
major features of this bill. It had many provisions hammered out over
months of negotiations.
Those of us who came back this week said we were finally going to do
something on the border, and the good news is, it is bipartisan.
Senator Lankford has signed off on it, and the other two Senators,
representing the Democratic side of the aisle, signed off on it as
well. We were prepared to see this pass and hope for the best in the
House of Representatives.
Then the bottom dropped out. One thing happened that we didn't
anticipate. One person in America came out against the proposal. One
person said to the Republican Senators: Sorry, no matter what you
agreed to, it is unacceptable. Blame it on me, he said, but we are not
going to have a bipartisan agreement on the border. This is
unacceptable.
That one person is Donald Trump. He made that announcement at that
point. Many of the Republicans who had indicated interest in this
measure walked away from it, and today, I am afraid we are going to see
that in the vote. It is really sad when you consider what is at stake,
the lives that are at stake all across the United States. People who
are trying to come to this country with good intentions and good
purposes and would make us a better nation are being caught up in this
political battle.
So when Senator Schumer comes to the floor and expresses his
disappointment, he speaks for the entire Senate Democratic caucus. We
are disappointed that we came up with a bipartisan bill with Senator
Lankford, who has been a stalwart in this whole experience. He has
shown principle and values and negotiated in good faith. He produced a
bipartisan bill, and we are prepared to vote for it this afternoon.
The sad reality is that the assistance to Ukraine, which was one of
the original reasons for this conversation, is still in doubt. I hope
at the end of the day that the Democrats can lead the way, with the
Republicans, and provide the survival assistance absolutely necessary
for the people in Ukraine. They are watching carefully.
At the end of next week, a group of us will be going to the Munich
Security Conference in Germany. It is held each year. It is a
bipartisan delegation. We go to speak for the United States. What we
have to say to our European allies will depend on the votes that will
follow today, the first and the second vote. Will we stand by Ukraine
or will we walk away from it and let Vladimir Putin have his dream of
an expansion of the former Soviet system? I hope not.
The people in Ukraine deserve better. We need to stand together with
them. There is much to be said as to what this means to the rest of the
world, but we have been reminded by our NATO allies, who have been
loyal to a fault so far--and I hope they continue to be--that we can't
walk away from that situation without inviting disastrous consequences
around the world.
I am afraid that if we walk away from Ukraine, they will struggle to
survive. And I hope they do, but it will be a real struggle. In the
meantime, it heartens Vladimir Putin and our adversaries around the
world to see us waiver when it comes to staying with the Ukrainian
people.
I hope that vote this afternoon--that both votes are in a positive
way, that we can take that message to the rest of the world that we are
still there.
I also want to say that it is hard to imagine that the party of
Ronald Reagan and John McCain--the party that claimed to take a strong
stand

[[Page S432]]

against communism--just played right into the hands of former KGB
apparatchik Vladimir Putin's hand. That is right--the same Putin who
called the collapse of Soviet tyranny ``the greatest geopolitical
catastrophe of the 20th century.''
Putin and his Iranian and North Korean enablers are trying to roll
back Western democracy and restore Soviet glory, and the front of the
line is Ukraine, where the United States and European allies have
helped these heroic Ukrainians to repel the Russian invasion.
What is Putin's strategy after suffering staggering losses in
equipment and personnel? To bet that the United States will allow
partisanship to interfere with its support of Ukraine and hope that
former President Trump returns to the White House. That is Putin's
dream.
Just as we learned when it came to the agreement--the bipartisan
agreement--on border security, Donald Trump has made it clear that he
opposes this continuing assistance to Ukraine.
You may recall that in 2018, Trump stood next to Putin in Helsinki
and said he believed Putin's denials about interfering in our election,
while Putin smirked at the podium.
By failing to pass national security funding, we would be playing
into Putin's hands.
Many congressional Republicans have spoken loudly about defending
Ukraine and the NATO alliance. They have traveled to NATO summits and
even Munich security conferences to support this mission. They have
also visited Ukraine, followed by press conferences with belligerent
claims that President Biden just wasn't doing enough. But today, the
fate of Ukraine hangs in the balance on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
It seems too many of my colleagues have collectively cowered to
Donald Trump, who wants to tank the supplemental funding agreement for
his own cynical reasons. Is that who congressional Republicans are
going to entrust with stopping Russian aggression? Make no mistake, it
is not only Putin watching and savoring this failure to act; it is
Iran, China, North Korea, and others.
I think of the late John McCain and how he would look at the
situation on the Republican side of the aisle today. He was a fierce
critic throughout his life of Russian tyranny, especially Putin's
tyranny. He was the target of Putin's early sanctions, as many of us
were as well. John McCain took that as a badge of pride, and I do too.
It is time we show the same courage here in Congress and make sure
that we pass emergency national security funding. Last I checked,
protecting democracy and safeguarding American security were bipartisan
causes, and they should be still.
I would like to make one last point. It is hard for me to see us
visit this issue of immigration and not mention an issue that has been
near and dear to me for more than two decades.
Today, I want to tell you the story of a Dreamer, Dr. Jacqueline
Solis. Hers is the 139th Dreamer story I have told on the floor of the
Senate. Jacqueline was born in Peru and immigrated to this country when
she was 10. She wanted to become a doctor. She didn't think it was
possible because she was undocumented.
Twelve years ago, in response to a bipartisan request from myself and
the late Senator Richard Lugar, President Obama established DACA
Program. It has protected more than 800,000 young people like
Jacqueline. Thanks to DACA, she was able to attend medical school. I am
proud to say that last year, she graduated from Loyola University
Chicago's Stritch School of Medicine, the first medical school to
accept DACA applicants. She is now completing her pediatrics residency
at Emory University Hospital. DACA allowed her to come out of the
shadows and give back to the country she grew up in, the country she
loves: the United States of America. She hopes to be an agent of change
in her community where she mentors medical students and first-
generation, low-income students. One of her goals is to open a mobile
clinic where she could drive to different communities and help
patients.
Ask yourself: Would America be better off if Dr. Jacqueline Solis and
Dreamers like her were unable to work in the United States? Still, 20
years later, we are trying our best to make sure these young people
have a fighting chance to be part of America's future.
Last September, a Federal judge in Texas declared the DACA program
illegal, though the decision left in place protections for current DACA
recipients while the appeal is pending. These young people live in fear
that the next court decision will upend their lives. That would be a
disaster.
When we get on the subject of immigration, the border is critical. It
is important. I want to be part of that conversation. Please, don't
forget the Dreamers, and don't forget so many people who have proven
over and over again that they are our future and our strength, if given
that chance.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to
use a prop during this speech.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LANKFORD. In about an hour, this body will gather. There will be
100 Senators here to make a decision about what we are going to do to
take a step on border security. It is an issue that has bedeviled,
quite frankly, this body for decades. It has been three decades since
we passed anything into law to be able to change border security.
In the meantime, administration after administration has pieced
together broken pieces of law in the disjointing pieces and tried to
make regulatory actions to see what they can do to be able to change
the direction of the country.
We have seen just over the last 10 or 15 years what really happened
to that. This is just an encounter number from CBP; and we can look
back to 2009, and we can see the numbers stayed about half a million or
so for multiple years.
This is through the Obama administration. They struggled because the
numbers were lower than this even before. They struggled with half a
million numbers. We see during the Trump administration how the numbers
bump up and jump up here almost to a million in a single year, twice as
many as it was during the Obama time period. Then we see COVID time
period, it dives back down. Then right there is the transition in
President Biden's time, and the numbers have skyrocketed. They doubled
from the Biden administration to this year in the Trump administration,
but then they tripled even from the highest year of the Trump
administration during the Biden administration.
It wasn't a single bump year like it was under the Trump
administration. It has been year after year after year. By the way,
this little one is this fiscal year. That is just since October--which
by the way, you will notice in the last 4 months is higher than any
year under the Obama administration and almost as high as the peak year
under the Trump administration, and that is 4 months so far this year.

Americans feel it. We feel it in our cities. We feel it in our
schools and our communities. We see the television, and we see all of
the chaos on our southern border. Cities around the country have said:
Do something. Make this stop.
Americans, whether they are Republican, Democrat, or Independent, are
all unanimous on this issue: This is a problem that needs to be solved;
do what you can.
Today, we get to decide if we are going to do that or not; if we are
going to do nothing or do something. The bill that has been put
together has been a bipartisan effort. Welcome to the U.S. Senate. That
is what we have to do. While I have people from around the country and
back home that say: Do a Republican-only bill; just get all of our
priorities and none of theirs. I smile at them and say: Welcome to
governance. You can do a partisan bill in the House, but in the Senate,
we have to look at each other across the aisle and then figure out a
way to be able to solve this. Sometimes it is in committees; sometimes
it is a gathering; sometimes it was like this time: Get Members
together--Republican, Independent, Democratic--to be able to sit down
and hash out the issues; to say this is a problem, we all agree. We are
not going to agree on the solutions, necessarily, but we all agree this
is a problem. But we have to figure out what the solutions might be.

[[Page S433]]

That has been the process for the last 4 months--4 months--to sit
down and hash through the very difficult, very technical issues of
border security in our Nation with one goal: Let's make progress.
We understood from the beginning we are not going to solve
everything. We are not. We knew from the beginning it is not going to
be perfect. But we also knew the status quo is untenable. We have to do
something to be able to make the status quo better. So that is what we
worked towards--to be able to change where we are now.
The product we put out this past weekend allowed everybody to see it.
Quite frankly, I had some of my colleagues that said: I will need weeks
to evaluate it because it is so technical. And it is. But some,
literally within minutes, said: No, I don't agree.
Fine. But after time to be able to review it, the National Border
Patrol Council--the group that is actually on the ground trying to
manage the chaos--they read through the bill and evaluated it. And the
National Border Patrol Council gave this statement:

[The Border Patrol Act of 2024] will give U.S. Border
Patrol agents authorities codified, in law, that we have not
had in the past.
While not perfect--

And I will agree with them on that.

--the Border Patrol Act of 2024 is a step in the right
direction and is far better than the current status quo. This
is why the National Border Patrol Council endorses this bill
and hopes for its quick passage.

I understand this: In this building and in the 202 area code that is
Washington, DC, border security is a political issue. But if we leave
the 202 area code, everywhere else in the country, this is not a
political issue; it is a national security issue. And when you actually
go to the Border Patrol Council, those that see the chaos day-to-day,
they are saying: Send us some help; send us anything.
Quite frankly, Americans are frustrated and angry because our borders
are open. They have seen the record numbers in the last 4 months. They
know full well what is happening. The ``60 Minutes'' story from this
last weekend was about Chinese nationals using TikTok to be able to
find the holes in the fence and to be able to navigate it; how to be
able to connect with Mexican cartel members to be able to navigate in
through Mexico to be able to get through. Why is that such a big story?
Because we used to rarely have Chinese nationals come across our
border. But yet, last year, we had 37,000 Chinese nationals come across
our border--37,000.
Americans watched the story of a group of migrants in New York City
ruthlessly beating up a police officer this past week. And then see
they were released again. They are angry. They are frustrated. The
stories that have come out in the news recently of three child sex
traffickers who had attempted reentry back into the United States make
Americans go: Hold on.
Just a few days ago, there was a story coming out of an al-Shabaab--
terrorists on our Terror Watchlist--that had come across our border and
had been released just early last year. They then picked them up while
they were in Minnesota just a few weeks ago.
We have had 50 people that have been identified on the Terror
Watchlist that we did apprehend in just the last 4 months. We have had
tens of thousands of people in the last year that were identified by
this administration as individuals who were what they call special
interest aliens. By definition, they are a national security risk.
There are tens of thousands that we didn't know their name, in
particular, but we know that where they live is in an area of high
national security risk because the high terrorism rate is coming from
that area. We have no criminal history on them to be able to identify
them on our Terror Watchlist, but we know there is a high chance they
are a national security risk.
Those individuals were released into the country. Americans feel it.
They want something different. The Americans that I talk to, the
Oklahomans that I talk to don't mind legal immigration. In fact, they
celebrate legal immigration. They just don't want illegal immigration.
They want an orderly process. They want to know that the rule of law
still matters in America. That is what they want to know. They want to
know their American way of life is protected, and that should not be
too much to demand.
This very divided Nation brings to us a very divided Congress.
Currently, we have a Republican two-vote majority in the House of
Representatives and a Democrat one-vote majority in the U.S. Senate. It
doesn't get much closer than that to being equally divided in two
bodies.
But that means, if we are going to solve something, we have to sit
down together and solve it. That is how it works when you make law. You
can do press conferences without the other side, but you can't make law
without the other side in the U.S. Senate. So we have to sit down and
work things out.
In October, when Israel was ruthlessly attacked with a terrorist
attack by Hamas, the President of the United States came to Congress
and said: We need additional funding to help Israel, to help Ukraine,
to help with the threats in Taiwan, and additional money for our
southern border.
Republicans responded by saying: We are not going to help give money
to the southern border--by the way, especially for some of the funding
that they asked for on the southern border, like safe migration offices
to be able to help facilitate greater traffic to the United States.
We said: We are not going to do that. We are not going to give
additional money to the southern border unless we get a change in law
and policy.
That is not a radical concept, quite frankly. The House of
Representatives, last year, passed a very comprehensive bill on border
security that they call H.R. 2. It was one of their priorities. Do you
know why? Because the House of Representatives, at that time, said: We
need a change in law. So they brought a bill to change the law for
that.
We said the same thing: We need a change in law because it is
significant what has occurred, and we need to address it.
The frightening thing is, since we started meeting in a bipartisan
way in October, October was the highest number of illegal crossings of
any October in our history. November was the highest number of illegal
crossings of any November in our history. December was the highest
number of illegal crossings of any December in our history and the
highest single month in history of illegal crossings, including having
the highest single day ever in the history of our country in illegal
crossings: Over 12,000 in a single day.
That is what has happened just since we have been negotiating this
bill trying to be able to get to a solution. The problem has not gotten
better. It has gotten worse during that time period. We need to solve
this. The worst-case scenario is the status quo. We need to solve it.
So we came up with a bill. It doesn't have everything in it I wanted.
It doesn't have everything in it my Democratic colleagues wanted. But
it definitely makes a difference.
What is in this bill?
Well, here is what the bill includes. Let me just walk through some
of the high points of it. It includes more border wall construction,
under the 18-foot, 30-foot bollard-style definition, in locations,
actually, that were set by President Trump in those locations to
actually build a wall.
It has 50,000 detention beds. So it ends our catch-and-release issue.
So especially single adults, as they are coming across, the vast
majority end up being held while they are being screened there, rather
than just released into the country as they are now.
We doubled the deportation flights. We added money for DNA testing.
We added money for additional State, local, and private law enforcement
that we are partnering with along the border to be able to help with
the enforcement process there.
We have a tremendous increase in the number of ICE agents, the number
of Border Patrol agents, more asylum officers, more immigration judges.
We added detection equipment at our ports of entry to interdict
fentanyl, one of the biggest threats to our Nation right now.
And we increased the sanction authority for the U.S. Government to be
able to sanction those ruthless cartels and members of cartels and
those that facilitate them to be able to go after the fentanyl issue in
the United States.

[[Page S434]]

It has a pretty radical change in asylum law in it. It strengthens
significantly the standard of evidence for declaring asylum. Today,
people who are crossing the border can literally cross and say: ``I
have fear in my country.'' When they say those magic words, they are
released into the country--the vast majority of them--for up to 10
years, while they await their screening or hearing. That would end
under this bill.
We increase significantly the standard for evidence. We add three new
eligibility bars at the beginning of it so we get to a faster screening
process and, for those who are not eligible, a faster deportation.
It is somewhat of a ``Where's Waldo?'' game on a day-to-day basis on
our southern border, as we have thousands of people coming through.
Some of those individuals do qualify for asylum, but most of them do
not. So our goal was to be able to filter through quickly, identify
those who qualify, and deport all of them who do not.
We have a faster structure to process aliens when they cross the
border, in detention or nondetained, either one, so they don't end up
in the 10-year backlog awaiting their decision--both for those who
qualify for asylum, so they don't wait 10 years, and those that
everyone knows, from the beginning, they don't qualify for asylum, they
are turned around and deported immediately.
This ends the abuse of parole that is happening on our southern
border today. Today, the administration will identify 1,500 people,
will give them parole authority at one of our ports of entry and a work
permit the first day they come.
They don't have to qualify for asylum. They don't even have to apply
for asylum. It is literally an open invitation for anyone anywhere in
the world to get a work permit if you will just tell us in advance you
are coming. It is not lawful. It is just happening. This bill would end
that.
This bill also has a short-term, 3-year authority to quickly stop the
flow of people coming into our country right now.
I had a lot of my colleagues on the Republican side that said:
Whatever we pass will never be implemented by the Biden administration.
We have got to do something, though, right now, to be able to get
things to change, because everyone knows this is occurring not because
of some migration trends around the world but because right there,
President Biden announced, ``I am not going to build any more wall,''
and he dropped all the authorities that had been used not just by
President Trump but by Presidents Trump and Obama. He dropped them, and
we saw this skyrocket.

So everyone said: Whatever we pass, President Biden will never use.
So whatever you can put in there to be able to actually make sure this
occurs, please do.
So we did. We included a border emergency authority that said if we
ever exceed 5,000 people--which, by the way, is every day but 7 in the
last 4 months--if we ever exceed 5,000 people and we are at chaos
level, the border shuts down completely. It is not optional; it is
mandatory.
And when I say ``shut down,'' it is pretty simple. What happens for
the first 5,000? Let me make it clear. For the first 5,000 people who
are coming across, they are detained, they are screened, and then
deported. If you get above 5,000, we are in such a chaotic moment that
we don't have time. So we just detain and deport them. There is no
screening at all because we have run out of time. We don't have the
manpower to do it. That is the shift that occurs.
It is not that the first 5,000 are released. That is ridiculous. The
first 5,000 we detain, we screen, and then we deport. The second, if we
get above 5,000, we just detain and deport. And when the border is
closed down, it is closed down for weeks, where we are not even
screening for weeks until we get caught up. It was something that we
could implement right now and to be able to make a difference.
We also changed the funding process on this. There are items that the
President really wanted on some of the funding. So we said: We are fine
on that funding, as long as you don't get that funding until you
actually get more detention beds, get more deportation flights, hire
more ICE officers, hire more Border Patrol, and actually implement the
new policy. When you do that, then you get all of the money that you
are actually looking for in the other areas.
We wanted to make sure that, actually, this was going to be
implemented. So we included that in the bill today. That is what we
have on the floor today, and I am afraid of what I have heard some
people say: It is not enough.
So we will make a decision soon. Let me just say this. I have
listened to a lot of my colleagues in the last several days, as well I
should. I have listened for months. Some people legitimately want more
time to read the bill. I will tell you it is 370 pages. It is
incredibly technical. And I have had several colleagues say: I started
to read it, and it makes my head hurt to read it because immigration
law is very complicated.
So they are going through it, and they said: Hey, I am interested in
supporting this. I just need more time.
Some of those folks are going to vote no today because they
legitimately need more time. I completely understand that.
There are some folks who are voting no today because they have policy
differences on the bill. We have asylum officers that are empowered to
make decisions; they want immigration judges to make it. OK, that is a
policy difference on it.
Some folks don't like that we have visas that are in this. That
increases legal immigration--not illegal, legal immigration--in the
country. There are some folks that don't want any immigration of any
type. Well, fine, we can have that policy difference. I don't mind
legal immigration. I just don't want illegal immigration.
Some of them may have policy differences. Some of them have been very
clear with me that they have political differences with the bill. They
say it is the wrong time to solve the problem, or let the Presidential
election solve this problem.
In fact, I had a popular commentator, 4 weeks ago, that I talked to,
that told me flat out, before they knew any of the contents of the
bill--any of the contents, nothing was out at that point--that told me
flat out: If you try to move a bill that solves the border crisis
during this Presidential year, I will do whatever I can to destroy you,
because I do not want you to solve this during the Presidential
election.
By the way, they have been faithful to their promise and have done
everything they can to destroy me in the past several weeks.
There are other folks that read the Facebook posts and the Twitter
posts and saw different facts that they thought might be true, but I
have personally told them over and over again they are false. And it
has been hard to overcome.
For some reason, we still believe everything we read on the internet,
and it has been hard to be able to break through. A few weeks ago, I
posted one of my favorite quotes from Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who was
a preacher from England in the 1850s, where he once said:

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets
its boots on.

And it couldn't have proved to be more true than this. I have seen
posts like, ``There is amnesty in this bill,'' so that people are
adamantly opposed that there is amnesty in the bill.
I would say that some of my Democratic colleagues wanted to have some
amnesty in this bill, but there wasn't, and there is not anything on
amnesty in this bill.
I have heard folks say it weakens our asylum laws, when it actually
does the opposite. It far strengthens our asylum laws, so we can get to
actual asylees faster, and those who are gaming the system are turned
around.
I have had folks say it takes away the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy so
they can never come back. It does nothing of that at all--nothing of
that.
I have had folks say it gives away work permits the very first day,
which will incentivize more people to come, when it actually does
exactly the opposite. It actually removes the 1,500 work permits that
are passed out every day and says we are not going to do that.
And my favorite one has been: It lets 5,000 aliens in every single
day from here on out forever.
And I have just said that is completely absurd. Why would anyone--

[[Page S435]]

anyone--sign a bill, approve a bill, or present a bill that locks us
into this chaos. That is what we have now. The 5,000 piece was very
simple. If we get to 5,000 a day, we can't process that many people
anymore. It is a critical emergency. We break glass and say we are not
even going to try to do hearings anymore. Everybody has got to turn
around. Everything is shut down so we can make sure that we can
actually legally process people. We are detaining, screening, and
deporting until we get to a break-glass moment, and then we are not
even screening anymore. We are just detaining and deporting because we
can't manage the numbers.
But that is not what has been told. What has been told has been false
day after day.
And then, as I have mentioned, I have had a few folks that have said:
If I can't get everything, I want nothing.
I don't find most Americans are that way just in their day-to-day
life. We have high goals and aspirations as Americans, and, quite
frankly, I don't blame Americans for being really angry and frustrated
about where we are at the border--really angry and frustrated.
But what I hear from most Oklahomans is: Do something. Don't just sit
there. Do something. Make progress. But don't allow this to keep going.
Stop it where you can. So that is what we worked do.

Now, to be clear, President Biden has authorities he could have used
that he has chosen not to. Authorities that President Trump used,
authorities that President Obama used, President Biden has chosen not
to use. There are a lot of them. And for whatever reason, he has turned
his head away from the chaos that America is focused on, and he needs
to do what he can to solve this problem.
But we also need to make changes in law. Our asylum law is weak.
Everyone knows this. In fact, when President Trump was President, he
even made the statements about how weak our laws are on asylum. When
President Trump was President, he said, ``We do a very good job
considering the laws are so bad. They are not archaic; they are
incompetent. It is not that they are old; they are just bad.''
Well, guess what this bill does. Fixes that because the laws have a
gap, and we should actually fix those things.
What the President cannot do is change the asylum laws. He cannot
change the faster deportations for people crossing. He cannot add an
emergency authority like this. He cannot conduct faster hearings with
limited appeals so we can get to deporting people who are not legal
here and addressing those who are. We can't do that without a change in
law, so we need to change the law.
I am going to vote yes to be able to move on to this bill. So we need
a change in the law. I understand we have differences, but we have got
to sit down together, figure out how we are going to solve problems
because the American people sent us here to do that.
This is the pen that I was handed at that desk when I was sworn into
the U.S. Senate, and I signed a book that was at that desk with this
pen because I was becoming a U.S. Senator because the people at home
sent me here to get stuff done and to solve problems. There is no
reason for me to have this pen if we are just going to do press
conferences. I can do press conferences from anywhere, but we can only
make law from this room. And to do that, you need one of these pens,
and there are 100 of them in this room, and 60 of us have to agree to
solve a problem.
And I am determined to sit down with anyone who wants to solve the
problem, regardless of what side of the aisle that they are on, to
figure out how we solve these things because Americans are ticked off
that this is not resolved, and they expect us to get things done. So
why don't we do that?
I have two staff members named Sarah Seitz and Jacob Stubbs, who have
worked their tails off for 4 months. They gave up Thanksgiving; they
gave up Christmas; they gave up New Year's to work on this. They are
remarkable leaders. But it is not just about the time they gave up and
the wisdom that they have as leaders, their focus on that was to solve
a problem that at the end of this day, may still be a problem unsolved.
And tomorrow, we will probably have 6,500 people illegally cross our
border just like what is happening right now, today--6,500 people.
Americans want that stopped. So let's actually sit down and figure
out how we are going to stop it together.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I come to speak before the vote today,
but I do hope that all of my colleagues heard the Senator from
Oklahoma, heard his powerful words, especially the last several
minutes, and pause and think about it. They were critically important
for each one of us to think about, and I thank the Senator for all of
his work on this and for his powerful statement just now.
But if you want to understand why people can't stand politics, watch
how many Republicans vote against this bill. Some of my colleagues do
not seem to understand this is not a game. There is a war happening
right now in Ukraine where our allies are being gunned down and Putin
is rolling his tanks into their homeland. There is a war happening
right now between Israel and Hamas. There are civilians at this very
moment caught in the crossfire. There are partners in the Indo-Pacific
wondering if they can count on us. And let's not forget, there is the
border, the site of countless Republican photo ops, where we have a
genuine need of reforms and resources.
That is the moment we are in. That is the moment that this package is
meant to address. And by voting it down, Republicans will be telling
our allies, our word cannot be trusted; telling dictators like Putin
that our threats are not serious; telling the world, American
leadership has been hollowed out by Republican obstructionism. And
let's be clear, they will be telling the American people they don't
want to solve the crisis at the border; they want to campaign on it
because if you genuinely believe something is a crisis, you take any
step you can to address it. You don't let a fire burn because Donald
Trump wants to campaign on ashes.
We have heard a lot of talk from Republicans about the border, about
countering the Chinese Government, about supporting Israel and standing
up to Putin. But governing is about action. Governing is about
compromise. Governing is about standing behind your word in order to
solve problems.
And I am sorry to say that despite the talks from many Republicans
about continuing to support Ukraine, they have yet to join us in
actually voting for serious aid for Ukraine since last Congress.
As the minority leader admitted yesterday, this was all because his
side, Republicans, insisted--insisted--Ukraine aid be tied to border
policies--a standard, by the way, that they have not applied to any of
our other allies and one that tells every country who would partner
with us that you better hope you don't become leverage for an
unrelated, partisan demand.
It was an absurd request. I have said so from the start. But a lot
hangs in the balance, so Democrats listened to them and took them at
their word and have been glued to the negotiating table in order to
address this problem, and I want to thank, from the bottom of my heart,
my colleagues--to Senator Sinema, to Senator Lankford, to Senator
Murphy--they worked so long and hard to hammer out a deal on border
policies, one that is, quite frankly, more conservative than many of us
would have liked, including myself.

But I worked tirelessly with my vice chair, the senior Senator from
Maine, to ensure that the border resources were there to help address
this problem. And through listening and compromising and working
together in good faith, we reached a bipartisan agreement to fund the
border policies that others negotiated.
And now after saying they had to have both of these in the package in
order to support it, Republicans are now poised to kill it. Republicans
went from ``We demand border policy changes'' to ``No policy is
needed.'' They went from ``We need time to look at this bill'' to
``Dead on arrival'' in less than 24 hours. They went from ``The border
is a crisis right now'' to ``It can wait until November,'' in the blink
of an eye--and will not support the bipartisan policy nor the
bipartisan funding.
What changed? What changed? Well, Donald Trump ordered Republicans to

[[Page S436]]

kill the bipartisan border deal. Trump has not been subtle. He has
literally said: ``Please blame it on me,'' if this deal goes down in
flames, and there is no action on the border.
And we are going to see today just how many Republicans fall in line,
and it may well be most of them. But I would remind my colleagues, the
American people are the ones who sent us here, not Donald Trump. They
are the ones we should answer to, not Donald Trump. And I think we all
know the folks back home sent us here to solve problems--to solve
problems--not to block bipartisan solutions. They want us to work
together. They want us to make progress, even when it isn't perfect.
And, frankly, if that doesn't convince you to support this bill, if
you are still thinking about what is good politics, not good policy, I
still don't know why you would listen to Donald Trump because solving
problems, that is good politics. Maintaining America's national
security, that is good politics.
So I hope all of my Republican colleagues will think about this vote
carefully. How long will you give Donald Trump a permanent veto over
whatever policy he decides he doesn't like or isn't helpful to him
personally? I have to ask: What is the point of being a Senator if you
let Donald Trump make all of the decisions for you?
It wasn't so long ago that Donald Trump incited an actual
insurrection. We all had to flee or we barricaded ourselves into our
offices. Did any of my colleagues on the other side think you would let
that same man dictate what policy you could or couldn't even debate? It
was just 3 short years ago that some of you, on the other side, voted--
and many of us voted--to remove Trump from office.
So I ask my colleagues: Please listen when I say today is a critical
vote. Today is a day to decide. Today is a vote about whether we, as
U.S. Senators, will keep our word when we negotiate with each other.
Today is a day we, as U.S. Senators, will vote to show we will work
together to stand up for American interests and national security at
home and abroad. And today is a day we, as Senators, show the world we
are a country that stands behind our word and stands with our allies
and works past politics to do what is right for this country and the
people we were sent here to represent.
I hope my colleagues will think about that long and hard, and then I
sincerely hope they will do the right thing and abandon the MAGA
politics.
There is so much work we have left to do together moving forward, and
you should all know me well enough to know I am always ready to work
together, not against one another. So even if this vote fails, I am
determined to not let partisanship win the day. We are going to try
again to pass a package that gets our allies the aid they so
desperately need, and I hope before we get to that, that every Senator
in this body listens to what the Senator from Oklahoma said and pauses
and thinks about what their word means to the people who sent them here
to do the right thing for our country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Ms. SINEMA. I stand here today as the border crisis is devastating my
State. Just last week, Nogales officers seized 2.1 million fentanyl
pills at a port of entry. Just last week, Border Patrol agents
recovered in the Tucson desert enough fentanyl to kill 340,000
Americans. Just last week, nearly 14,000 migrants crossed into
Arizona--many of them are military-aged men coming from all across the
globe.
Our broken border system is a national security crisis. Last
September, when my Republican colleagues demanded, with a clear and
unified voice, that border security must be included in Congress's
national security package, I wholeheartedly agreed. Finally, it seemed,
we had the opportunity to solve the nightmare my State has lived for
over 40 years.

So I got to work. My Republican colleagues chose Senator James
Lankford, my partner on the Homeland Security Border Management
Subcommittee. We have worked together for over 5 years on strong border
policy. Senator Lankford has joined me at the Arizona border to see the
crisis firsthand. Senator Lankford is an incredibly smart, earnest,
conservative lawmaker. I know he was chosen by his conference because
of his expertise and knowledge of border security policy and his
reputation as a serious conservative lawmaker who cares deeply about
getting policy right.
As we started the negotiation, Senator Lankford laid out four policy
pillars the Republican conference needed to secure the border.
No. 1, asylum. Raise the asylum standard and close the loopholes so
cartels and economic migrants can no longer exploit the system.
No. 2, safe third country. Ensure that people who have lived safely
in another country don't backlog our system because they do not qualify
for asylum.
No. 3, close the border. Create a title 42-like authority to shut
down the border when our system is backlogged and overwhelmed.
No. 4, parole. Stop the administration from giving migrants at the
border a free pass into our country.
Over the course of nearly 5 months, we worked every single day
navigating the intricate and difficult policy decisions to meet these
four pillars. And when we hit bumps, I reminded everyone at the table
about what was happening on the ground at my border--what real life
looks like in Arizona--because I knew that those four key pillars were
necessary to secure the border and solve the crisis.
That is why, just yesterday when endorsing our bill, Yuma Mayor Doug
Nicholls said:

Thank you . . . for incorporating many of the specific
issues that border leaders have asked to be addressed.

So together with Senators Lankford and Murphy and our incredibly
talented staffs, including my staff director on the Border Management
Subcommittee, Anthony Papian, who is here today, we worked through
weekends and through holidays to get these policies right. Senator
Murphy, Senator Lankford, and I--we all negotiated in good faith.
We delivered. We produced a bill many thought impossible. Our bill
overhauls the broken system. It stops the misuse of parole, and it
closes the border during surges, ensuring the quick detention and
deportation of migrants who don't have a legal right to be here. We end
catch-and-release. We add more detention beds. We increase deportation
flights. We quickly decide asylum claims. We put Border Patrol back in
the desert catching the bad guys and the drugs.
That is why the National Border Patrol Council endorses our bill, not
H.R. 2. We produced a bill that finally, after decades of all talk and
no action, secures the border and solves the border crisis.
Our bill was ready for prime time. We were ready to bring the bill to
the floor, open it up for debate and amendments--you know, how the
Senate is supposed to work--and then pass the bill.
But less than 24 hours after we released the bill, my Republican
colleagues changed their minds. Turns out they want all talk and no
action. It turns out border security is not actually a risk to our
national security; it is just a talking point for the election.
After all of their cable news appearances, after all those campaign
photo ops in the desert, after all those trips to the border, this
crisis isn't actually much of a crisis after all.
Sunday morning, there was a real crisis at the border. Monday
morning, that crisis magically disappeared.
Well, guess what, guys. The crisis is real.
It is real in Arizona. On Sunday, the day we released our bill, over
6,000 migrants crossed the border. On Monday, the day this body decided
the border crisis was no longer a crisis, over 6,500 migrants crossed
the border. And yesterday, the day the Republican conference Members
said that we are not going to pass a border bill, the day my colleagues
said no, nearly 7,000 migrants crossed the border.
The border emergency authority in our border bill would have shut the
border down, literally, every single day this year.
Now, I have been sharing the facts of our bill to anyone who would
listen. I have refuted the lie that says our bill allows 5,000 migrants
to enter the country every day. In fact, our bill stops those migrants
from coming into the country every day.
Meanwhile, by killing our bill, we have no title 42-like authority to
shut

[[Page S437]]

down the border. So, 5,000, 6,000, 7,000, 10,000, or even 14,000
migrants can cross into our country every single day.
Make no mistake--a vote against this bill is a vote for the status
quo. It is a vote for continued chaos at our border.
Our current system lets migrants into the country with nothing but a
piece of paper--a notice to appear for a court day years into the
future and no accountability structure to ensure they actually show up.
In Arizona, this broken system is commonly called catch-and-release.
It has been happening for years.
Our bill ends catch-and-release. But when this bill fails, catch-and-
release will continue every single day.
Some people say the President has all the authority he needs to
secure the border. Then, tell me why Arizona has lived the nightmare of
our border crisis for over 40 years and through the past five
administrations--Republican and Democratic? Before COVID, the last
administration tried to shut down the border. The courts stopped it.
After COVID, the courts struck down title 42.
It is clear: We need a law.
I have heard from some that the only solution is the House Republican
bill, H.R. 2. To them, I'd point out that our bill, unlike H.R. 2,
actually includes penalties for those who try to cross the border when
it is shut down, creating a 1-year bar for anyone who tries to cross
twice. H.R. 2? No consequences.
H.R. 2 continues the current flawed policy that allows migrants to
get work permits without any asylum interview. Our bill ends that. That
is why the conservative Wall Street Journal Editorial Board called our
bill the most restrictive migrant legislation in decades.
We make sure only those actually fleeing violence and persecution can
stay here and work, after they pass a new, faster, tougher screening.
And if someone doesn't finish the asylum process, their work permit
gets taken away. H.R. 2? Silent.
H.R. 2 doesn't even fund new detention beds, guys. H.R. 2--another
example of all talk and no action.
So if you want to spin the border crisis for your own political
agendas, go right ahead.
If you want to continue to use the southern border as a backdrop for
your political campaign, that is fine. Good luck to you.
But I have a very clear message for anyone using the southern border
for staged political events: Don't come to Arizona. Take your political
theater to Texas. Do not bring it to my State, because in Arizona, we
are serious. We don't have time for your political games. We are not
interested in you posing for the cameras.
In Arizona, we are busy. Just ask Cochise County ranchers David and
Tina Thompson. They live in the reality of our broken border every time
that migrants attempt to break into their home.
Ask Bisbee City Council member Leslie Johns, who had to open the
doors of the town's city council building and clear out the chambers
for migrants to sleep on the floor after they were released into a tiny
town with no shelter and just one bus stop.
Or ask Yuma farmer John Boelts who does his best to manage his farm
despite the lettuce crops constantly trampled by migrants crossing his
produce fields.
Or ask Bernadette Nez, the manager of Why Not Travel convenience
store in Why, AZ, who lost thousands of dollars every day before
Christmas while the Lukeville port of entry was closed.
Or ask Sierra Vista Mayor Clea McCaa, who lays in bed at night scared
that his teenage daughter could die in one of the daily, deadly high-
speed chases of teenagers smuggling drugs and people from the border up
to Phoenix and, next, into your State.
Or ask Bisbee Mayor Ken Budge, who is pleading with each and every
one of you to understand how your political games hurt border towns
like his. As he said yesterday:

I am saddened after all these months, now some Senators
have second thoughts about this from both parties . . .
. . . I would like to ask any of them to reverse their
roles and trade places with me. How they would like to live
in my home as a helicopter circled my home at 6:30 in the
morning for about an hour, as was the case today.

This is life in my border State. This is Arizona.
Earlier this week, it was noted that while facts on the border
haven't changed, the politics in the country have changed.
I guess that is it. The politics changed.
Three weeks ago, everyone wanted to solve the border crisis.
Yesterday, no one did.
For 4 months, we were stymied on action to support our allies and
stand up to Putin's illegal war. For 4 months, we have been unable to
move forward--unable to defend democracy overseas because of the urgent
need to secure our border.
And then, suddenly, in the last 48 hours, the border no longer
matters.
Some in this Chamber say: Let's just drop it. Hey, let's wait for the
election. Let's sort this out in the next Congress. Let's move on.
Arizona can't move on.
You here can decide this crisis is over, but the crisis is still real
in my State. And it will be tomorrow and the next day and the next day.
I usually end my speeches by calling on the better angels of our
nature. When we work together, we can solve problems.
We did that here, and you decided no. You decided you don't even want
to debate it. You don't want to amend it. You don't want to tackle the
problem.
Partisanship won. The Senate has failed Arizona.
Shameful.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. First, I thank the Senator from Arizona for her strong,
courageous, and heartfelt words.
Now, briefly, Madam President, Senators have a chance to show
precisely where they stand: Are they for border security or are they
not?
The choice is plain and simple, and this vote will show precisely who
is serious about securing the border and who is not.
We hope our Republican colleagues, so many of whom know this is the
right thing to do, will not bend to the wishes of Donald Trump, who
only wants chaos.

Unanimous Consent Agreement

Now, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory
quorum call for the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to H.R. 815
be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 30, H.R. 815, a bill to amend title
38, United States Code, to make certain improvements relating
to the eligibility of veterans to receive reimbursement for
emergency treatment furnished through the Veterans Community
Care program, and for other purposes.
Charles E. Schumer, Patty Murray, Benjamin L. Cardin,
Robert P. Casey, Jr., Mark R. Warner, Michael F.
Bennet, Catherine Cortez Masto, Margaret Wood Hassan,
Richard J. Durbin, Martin Heinrich, Tim Kaine, Kyrsten
Sinema, Jack Reed, Angus S. King, Jr., Richard
Blumenthal, Christopher Murphy, Brian Schatz.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to H.R. 815, a bill to amend title 38, United States
Code, to make certain improvements relating to the eligibility of
veterans to receive reimbursement for emergency treatment furnished
through the Veterans Community Care program, and for other purposes,
shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[[Page S438]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 39 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Butler
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lujan
Manchin
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Peters
Reed
Romney
Rosen
Schatz
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--50

Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kennedy
Lee
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Moran
Mullin
Padilla
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Schmitt
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Vance
Warren
Wicker
Young

NOT VOTING--1

Lummis

(Ms. ROSEN assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). On this vote, the yeas are 49,
the nays are 50.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Motion to Reconsider

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote whereby
cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to H.R. 815, and I ask
for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 40 Leg.]

YEAS--58

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Butler
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Romney
Rosen
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
Young

NAYS--41

Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
Marshall
Mullin
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Thune
Tuberville
Vance
Wicker

NOT VOTING--1

Lummis

The motion was agreed to.
(Ms. BUTLER assumed the Chair.)
(Ms. CORTEZ MASTO assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. OSSOFF assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hassan). The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, we have just finished the vote on the
motion to reconsider. We will recess until tomorrow and give our
Republican colleagues the night to figure themselves out. We will be
coming back tomorrow at noon, and, hopefully, that will give the
Republicans the time they need. We will have this vote tomorrow.

____________________