[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 21, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3790-S3800]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

  Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.


                 Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act

  Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the 
Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act, which is the strong, bipartisan 
farm bill proposal that has been put forward by our colleague from 
Michigan, Senator Stabenow, chair of the Agriculture Committee.
  Chair Stabenow's framework reflects more than 2 years of work and 
outreach and contains more than 100 bipartisan bills, and it puts the 
2024 farm bill back on track for being signed into law this year. As 
Chair Stabenow says, this farm bill is designed to keep farmers 
farming, families fed, and rural communities strong.
  The farm bill touches nearly every aspect of life, and it touches the 
life of nearly every American. It is a big, complicated piece of 
legislation, but at its core, it does three things.
  The first is that it governs how nutrition assistance, like SNAP, 
works for 42 million Americans, including 2.5 million rural residents.
  The second thing is that it sets the rules for how farm and forestry 
programs work, including conservation and risk management tools like 
crop insurance, animal health, research and education, and forestry and 
timber.
  Third, it drives rural development by supporting rural broadband, 
housing, childcare, and rural energy so that rural America can be 
strong, prosperous, and competitive.
  For many years, the farm bill has bucked the tide of partisanship in 
Congress by finding common ground, providing stability and 
predictability to farmers, ranchers, and rural communities, and by 
sustaining nearly 23 million jobs across the country.
  And why does it pass with such broad bipartisan support? Because we 
have all agreed in Congress to support what I think of as the three 
pillars of the farm bill: nutrition assistance, farm and conservation 
programs, and rural development.
  This has been the grand bargain of Congress--that we agree together 
to keep each of these pillars strong, and then you can pass the bill. 
If you weaken any of these pillars, then a bipartisan farm bill just 
doesn't stand.
  Colleagues, this grand bargain will be the recipe for success for the 
2024 farm bill as well. So I want to spend a few minutes talking about 
where we have agreement and what more we need to do to pass a strong 
bipartisan bill.
  Chair Stabenow released her proposal in early May, and, just this 
week, the House Agriculture Committee will mark up Chair Thompson's 
farm bill proposal. While Chair Thompson should be commended for 
including many proposals with broad bipartisan support, his bill 
significantly weakens nutrition and conservation programs. This 
undermines the grand bargain that is necessary to pass a bipartisan 
bill.
  Here is what I am talking about when it comes to nutrition programs: 
Almost 45 million Americans live in homes that don't have regular 
access to affordable food. Almost all of these households are working 
families or seniors or people who are living with disabilities. This is 
interestingly and especially a rural issue. Households in rural areas 
are even more affected. Of the top 10 counties facing the greatest food 
insecurity in this country, 9 are primarily in rural areas.
  So Chair Stabenow's proposal, which I support, strengthens nutrition 
assistance. It makes certain that nutrition assistance now and into the 
future is going to meet the needs of Americans by making sure that 
monthly stipends are enough so that families can afford the food that 
they need.
  I want to just note that it is not as if people are getting lots and 
lots of money here. I think the average cost for a family--the average 
benefit of a family--is somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 a day. So 
we are not talking about a lot of money per person.
  In contrast, the House Republicans' proposal prevents nutrition 
assistance from keeping pace with food costs. What does that mean for a 
family that is relying on SNAP benefits, for example? The Congressional 
Budget Office estimates that the House Republicans' farm bill could 
result in a $30 billion cut to SNAP over the next decade. This is going 
to hurt people. It is not going to help them. It won't work, and 
it won't pass with bipartisan support.

  Simply put, any farm bill proposal that weakens nutrition assistance 
now or in the future can't pass Congress.
  The foundational farm bill risk management, research, and 
conservation programs--those foundational programs--are also incredibly 
important. They should be strengthened and not weakened in the next 
farm bill.
  To that end, Chair Stabenow's farm bill includes many bipartisan 
provisions that I have fought for, along with many of my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle. It updates and improves crop insurance and 
other USDA programs so that they work better, especially for small and 
beginning farmers and farmers from more diverse backgrounds. I am 
thinking, in Minnesota, of Native farmers, of Black, Hmong, and Latino 
farmers, and of farmers who are recent African immigrants.
  It is interesting that, across the country and in Minnesota, the 
average age of farmers and ranchers in America is 58 to 60 years old. 
So it is essential for the future of our food system and for 
agriculture and farming that crop insurance is going to work for the 
next generation of farmers taking over, and that is what Chair 
Stabenow's bill does.
  I want to also note that Senator Stabenow's farm bill maintains the 
sugar program, which is so important to Minnesota's sugar beet farmers. 
The U.S. sugar policy runs at zero cost to taxpayers. What it does is 
to just simply make sure that American farmers can compete on a fair 
playing field against subsidized foreign sugar.
  Senator Stabenow's farm bill also includes updates to the Dairy 
Margin Coverage Program that we established in the 2018 bill. I expect 
this is important to the Vermont dairy farmers, as it is important to 
Minnesota's dairy

[[Page S3791]]

farmers. It basically provides them with an additional tool to help 
them manage the inevitable ups and downs in the sector in which they 
are competing.
  When it comes to what we need to do around conservation, Senator 
Stabenow's farm bill also protects the transformational conservation 
and climate-smart laws that we passed in the Inflation Reduction Act.
  Now, you don't need to tell Minnesota farmers that climate change is 
real. They see it every day in the growing intensity of the storms and 
droughts and fires and floods that they contend with. They also 
appreciate that better support for conservation programs for working 
farm and ranch land is good for their bottom line and improves their 
resilience. American family farmers are good stewards of their land, 
and Federal conservation programs need to support them.
  Climate-smart conservation means healthier soil and less need for 
expensive inputs. It is a win for farmers, for rural communities, and 
it is a win for the fight against climate change. It is also true that 
we need to get a better understanding of and be able to measure better 
how farming and ranching practices are working to sequester carbon and 
improve soil health.
  So I appreciate Chair Stabenow's work to include ideas from my 
bipartisan bill with Senator Young of Indiana to work on this and to 
help farmers identify best practices to make their farms more resilient 
and to combat climate change at the same time.
  Now is not the time to dismantle or weaken conservation and climate-
smart agriculture efforts. This is why proposals in Chair Thompson's 
bill in the House to strip out the climate-smart guardrails within our 
conservation programs--I mean, that just won't work, and it will not 
get the bipartisan support that the farm bill needs.
  Both Republicans and Democrats, I know, appreciate the importance of 
a strong rural development title in the farm bill. I want to touch on 
that for a minute as well.
  Small towns and rural places are creative. They are entrepreneurial. 
They are diverse, wonderful places to live and to raise a family. They 
produce our food and our energy. They are hubs of manufacturing, small 
business, education, healthcare, the arts, and culture. The farm bill 
needs to support them, and that is what Chair Stabenow's framework 
accomplishes.
  This farm bill has a strong energy title, including reauthorizing 
REAP. That is the Rural Energy for America Program, which helps ag 
producers and small businesses design and build projects to improve 
energy efficiency and to build out new renewable energy sources. This 
is good, of course. It creates jobs, it reduces energy bills, and it 
cuts greenhouse gas emissions.
  So I am glad that improvements and updates I pushed for are included 
in the chair's framework. I am also glad to see included proposals that 
I support and have worked on to increase childcare options and to 
improve broadband. People living in rural areas and in Tribal 
communities should not be stuck with slow internet speeds that folks in 
the cities would never put up with. This farm bill mandates faster 
minimum speeds for USDA broadband programs. That is what I pushed for 
in the work that I have done as well.
  Over the last several years, many individuals and groups have done 
excellent work to develop a strong farm bill, so as I conclude, I want 
to particularly note the excellent work and advocacy of the Native Farm 
Bill Coalition. This is over 170 Tribes and Native groups that have 
worked together to improve how USDA and farm programs work with Tribal 
governments and Native producers, from farming and ranching to 
nutrition programs, rural development, and forestry.
  This is incredibly important work, especially because, too often, 
Native voices have not been heard in this policy development. In 2018, 
the farm bill changed that. Under Chair Stabenow's leadership, the 2018 
farm bill included over 60 provisions that benefited Indian Country. 
This was a huge success, and we learned a lot from that. This next farm 
bill has to continue that progress.
  Members of the Native Farm Bill Coalition are visiting Washington 
just this week to testify to our responsibility in Congress, as defined 
in our treaty and trust obligations, to include Native farmers and 
Tribal governments in decisions about agriculture and forestry. We need 
to listen to them. It is actually our obligation to listen to them and 
to right the wrongs that have been perpetrated since the beginning of 
Federal farm and nutrition policy and long before.
  Tribal self-governance is an essential step here. Self-governance--
what it does is it recognizes that Tribal nations' authority to 
administer Federal programs--they have that authority within their own 
communities, and it recognizes that. This is not a new idea; it has 
worked successfully for over 30 years and is widely seen as one of the 
most successful Federal Indian policies that we have moved forward. It 
works because it recognizes that Tribal governments are in the best 
position to know what their communities need, and they know best how to 
deliver for them.
  This is called 638 authority. Folks may have seen this on the buttons 
of people walking around the hallway talking about 638 authority. What 
it comes from is the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 
Act. It says that Tribes can have the authority to plan and conduct and 
administer Federal programs.
  The 2018 farm bill created several self-governance pilot projects in 
forestry and in nutrition programs. These were very successful, and 
they should be made permanent. Chair Stabenow's bill does this, along 
with also including many other provisions to recognize and respect the 
role of Tribal governments and Native producers.
  We can do more, and we should. With expanded self-governance 
authority, Tribal nations will be able to build food systems that 
address food insecurity. They will be able to increase access to 
indigenous foods and to use indigenous knowledge for forest management 
and to support strong Tribal economies. Tribal leaders often say 
``Nothing about us without us.'' This value must guide us as we pass a 
2024 farm bill.
  I will continue to stand with Native leaders so that we can continue 
to make progress and pass the very best farm bill possible--one that 
respects our responsibilities to Tribes and to Native people; one that 
keeps farmers farming, families fed, and rural and Tribal communities 
strong.
  We have a lot more work to do, but we have made progress, and I am 
ready to keep up the work with my Democratic and Republican colleagues 
to pass a farm bill that delivers on this promise.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, this week, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is 
bringing up the failed border bill that the Senate already rejected in 
February, all on a political ploy to give vulnerable Democrat Senators 
up for reelection camouflage to hide their real views on the border.
  That failed border bill is nothing but a fig leaf that pretends to do 
something about border security but wouldn't actually secure the 
border. In fact, if it became law, it would make the problem worse.
  This Democrat bill would codify catch-and-release. It would put into 
Federal law Joe Biden's policy of releasing illegal aliens into this 
country. That is the cause of the open border crisis we have right now. 
It would normalize 5,000 illegal immigrants a day. That works out to 
1.8 million illegal immigrants a year every year, year after year, 
forever. It would provide immediate work permits to illegal aliens when 
they cross the border illegally, and it would provide many of them with 
taxpayer-funded lawyers.
  Not only is the bill by design utterly ineffective at securing the 
border, it is designed to fail. In fact, we can quantify mathematically 
the chances this bill has of passing the House of Representatives, and 
those chances are 0.00 percent.
  There is, however, a bill that we know would actually secure the 
border and would do so right now. It would put real penalties in place 
to end catch-and-release and to defund the NGOs that are a critical 
part of the human trafficking network. That bill is H.R. 2. H.R. 2 has 
already passed the House of Representatives. I am proud to lead H.R. 2 
here in the Senate.

[[Page S3792]]

  If the Democrats want to do the responsible thing that would actually 
secure the border, we would pass H.R. 2, but instead the Democrats 
deliberately want this border crisis to continue--every single Democrat 
Member of this body. We know this because every one of them has voted 
over and over and over again against policies to actually secure the 
border.
  When Joe Biden came into office, he inherited the lowest rate of 
illegal immigration in 45 years. All President Biden had to do was 
nothing--just don't screw it up--but instead he deliberately broke the 
system.
  He made three decisions his first week in office that caused this 
crisis:
  No. 1, he immediately halted construction of the border wall.
  No. 2, he reinstated the disastrous policy of catch-and-release--the 
policy the Democrats now want to put into Federal law.
  No. 3, he pulled out of the incredibly successful ``Remain in 
Mexico'' agreement. The ``Remain in Mexico'' agreement is what had 
produced the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 45 years.
  And what happened? We went from incredible success of securing the 
border to immediately the worst illegal immigration in our Nation's 
history. Over 11 million illegal immigrants have come into this country 
under Joe Biden and the Democrats. It is an invasion. It is larger than 
the population of more than half of our States.
  Now, why on Earth would the Democrats turn a blind eye to the people 
who are suffering and dying? Why would they turn a blind eye to the 
body bags, to the 853 migrants who died last year crossing illegally? 
Why would they turn a blind eye to the children being brutalized by 
human traffickers? Why would they turn a blind eye to the women being 
sexually assaulted by human traffickers? Why would they turn a blind 
eye to the more than 100,000 Americans who died last year of drug 
overdoses? Why would the Democrats turn a blind eye to the families, to 
the children being murdered by illegal immigrants whom Joe Biden is 
releasing? The answer, sadly, is that they see every one of these 11 
million illegal immigrants as future Democrat voters. It is a cynical 
decision that in order to stay in power, it is fine for people to 
suffer and die.
  In just a moment, I am going to propound a unanimous consent request 
to take up and pass H.R. 2. When I do so, we will have a moment of 
decision. All the Democrats have to do for this to pass is nothing--
just like Joe Biden. All Joe Biden had to do at the beginning of his 
Presidency to not break the border was nothing, just keep in place the 
policies that were working.
  When I ask for unanimous consent to pass this bill, if the Democrats 
do nothing, it will pass the Senate and go immediately to President 
Biden's desk, and he can sign it into law.
  I am going to predict right now we are going to hear two magic words 
from the Democrats. We are going to hear the words ``I object'' because 
they object to securing the border. They object to stopping this 
invasion. They object to standing up to the cartels. They object to 
protecting the American people.
  But before I do that, I want to yield to my colleague from Kansas, 
Senator Marshall.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Texas 
for leading the charge up here to secure our border.
  Since day one, Joe Biden has allowed the cartels to have operational 
control of our Nation's border, exploiting every weakness and pushing 
deadly fentanyl into our communities, killing over 300 Americans every 
day.
  I rise today to join my colleague in calling for unanimous consent 
for H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act, which the House passed over a 
year ago and has sat languishing here on this side of the Capitol, 
waiting for a hearing, waiting for a vote.
  Time after time, the President and his administration have shown us 
that our national security is an afterthought. We are facing 
unprecedented times.
  Under this President's watch, over 11 million illegal aliens are here 
now on U.S. soil, and instead of taking any real measures to address 
the crisis, he is doubling down.
  With just 6 months until the election now, the left wants you to 
believe they have suddenly stumbled upon a solution to the border 
crisis they created. In the news this week, we will see the Democrats' 
bait-and-switch tactics. And I want to remind the American people to 
watch what the majority leader and this administration do, not what 
they say. They have no serious solution. They know it. That is why it 
is painfully obvious that the stunts being pulled here this week are 
politically motivated.
  Americans across the heartland are feeling unsafe due to Joe Biden's 
worsening border crisis. Even a State like Kansas is now a border 
State. Fentanyl is flooding into our communities across the State, 
claiming a life most every day and now is the leading cause of death 
among young adults in America.
  Joe Biden's border crisis has resulted in over 300 known terrorists 
being apprehended in the past year for attempting to cross the southern 
border. Additionally, over 35,000 Chinese nationals and thousands of 
individuals from countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria have 
crossed through our southern border.
  We are in a sad state of affairs when our foreign adversaries are 
paying closer attention to our vulnerabilities at our borders than the 
President of the United States. Even our own FBI is sounding the alarm, 
now warning that because of this invasion, we are on high alert for a 
terrorist attack in the coming months.
  I stand today with a clear message for this Chamber: It is time to do 
what is right for the American people, not politically motivated 
messaging stunts that aren't serious or sincere to the people who have 
been victims of the Biden administration's lawlessness.
  We have a solution to secure our borders, a proposal that could go to 
the President's desk today. Let's pass the Secure the Border Act, H.R. 
2. This legislation tightens asylum standards. It builds a wall. It 
increases Border Patrol agents. And it ends catch-and-release. It 
passed over in the House over a year ago, but the majority leader 
refuses us to take a vote in the Senate.
  If Senate Democrats were truly serious about securing our borders, 
enforcing the rule of law, and protecting our Nation's sovereignty, 
they would stop wasting time and take up H.R. 2 today.
  Without secure borders, we cannot ensure our Nation's safety. This 
national security crisis is unprecedented, and we have thoughtful, real 
solutions to address it immediately. Americans deserve to feel safe in 
their own homes. This half-baked, so-called border bill is an insult to 
Laken Riley and her family and every other American citizen who has 
been victimized by crimes committed by someone who should not be in 
this country.
  Even the lead Democrat architect of the so-called border bill has 
said flat out this legislation does not close the border. You can quote 
him. It does not close the border. That is all the American people need 
to hear to see how fast and loose the Democrat Party is willing to play 
with our national security.
  This is a campaign stunt for the candidates you have in battleground 
States who are on political life support, and no grandstanding in 
Washington this week will change that fact.
  I would like to yield back to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, now is the moment when we will discover 
whether or not the Senate will pass real and strong legislation to 
secure the border. Again, all the Democrats have to do to send H.R. 2 
to the President's desk to be able to be signed today is nothing. And 
so let's listen for those magic words. The two magic words that would 
kill this bill are ``I object.'' Let's hear if that is what the 
Democrats have to say.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 71, H.R. 2; that the bill be 
considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--now, for 
the rest of the story.
  Last October, President Biden had a major piece of legislation that 
provided

[[Page S3793]]

assistance to Ukraine in its battle against Vladimir Putin. It provided 
assistance to Israel, assistance to Taiwan, and a massive amount of 
humanitarian aid. It was bipartisan, we thought.
  Then the Republicans, particularly in the Senate, stepped up and 
said: We are not going to consider any bill like that unless you attach 
something to deal with our border, border security.
  Well, we said: How are we going to achieve that? They gave us a 
formula that they wanted. They wanted to have their lead negotiator, 
the Senate Republicans did, one of our colleagues, Senator James 
Lankford of Oklahoma. James Lankford is a certified conservative--I am 
sure he would be happy to be called that--and a person I respect a 
great deal. He is a man of principle, and he was in charge of 
negotiating on the Republican side.
  So they asked us: Whom do you want--the Democrats--to negotiate? We 
said: Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Kyrsten Sinema, an Independent 
Democrat from Arizona. The three of them went to work in October of 
last year, and they worked on this for weeks, months. It went back and 
forth, and it looked many times like it was hopeless; we couldn't reach 
an agreement.
  Lo and behold, they did. They came up with a bill, a bill that 
massively changed the way we manage the border. They brought it to the 
White House, this bipartisan bill, and they said to Joe Biden: This 
bipartisan bill, will you support it? He said: I will.
  So we had a perfect formula: a bipartisan bill and a Congress with a 
Democratic Senate and a Republican House and a President of the United 
States who says: I will sign it.
  So what happened next? That is the best part. Many of the Republicans 
didn't take yes for an answer because we had this bipartisan bill, the 
architect being the Republican Senator of their choice. They decided to 
ask one man whether they should go forward. Want to guess who it was? 
Donald Trump.
  Donald Trump said: No. I am sorry. I don't want to see this issue go 
away. I want to be able to work on this issue as part of my 
Presidential campaign in the year 2024. So I am telling you right now, 
stop that bill; stop that bipartisan bill. Don't vote for it. And he 
said: If you want to know, you can blame me. Go ahead and blame me for 
stopping the bill.
  That is what he said. That is a quote. It is on the record. I saw him 
say it. And in fact, most of the Republicans, except for a handful on 
the other side of the aisle, then decided that the Lankford bipartisan 
bill was no longer acceptable because Trump said it was unacceptable.
  And that is what happened. And so that bill died and didn't go 
forward. And, unfortunately, we know the reality, as I mentioned 
earlier, is that any immigration bill that has a ghost of a chance 
needs to be bipartisan.
  This bill would prohibit funding for processing individuals who 
arrive at our border between ports of entry. Think about that. The bill 
would prohibit funding for processing individuals who arrive at our 
border between ports of entry. This would prevent Border Patrol agents 
from executing their duties and essentially create an open border in 
between ports of entry.
  This bill would also dramatically limit the use of parole programs 
that the Biden administration and prior administrations--Republicans 
and Democrats--have relied on for emergencies.
  I am proud to represent the city of Chicago. There is a section of 
that city called Ukrainian Village. It is in the Near North. I have 
been there many times. I have been to their churches. I have been to 
their schools. I have been to their bakeries, as you can tell. I really 
like that section of Chicago, and a lot of Ukrainian Americans live 
there.
  When we decided to help the refugees from the Ukrainian war, under 
President Biden and others, we said that we would give them an 
opportunity to come to the safety of the United States while the war 
was pending. In the city of Chicago, we estimate that 36,000 Ukrainians 
came to Chicago. We basically said to them: If you can find a family to 
sponsor you, we will give you a work permit, and you can stay here 
while the conflict continues in your country.
  They were absorbed into the Chicago and Illinois and the Midwest 
economy without a ripple. They are hard-working people, good people. 
They were accepted in the churches and the schools--their kids went to 
school there--and they really contributed to the Chicago scene. They 
have done a great job.
  Well, the authority of a President like Biden to make that decision 
for Ukrainian refugees is removed by this bill. This authority has been 
relied on by the executive branch for decades in emergency situations. 
The evacuation of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese allies in the 
1970s and the evacuation of thousands of Iraqi Kurds in the 1990s would 
be eliminated by this bill.
  This partisan legislation only received Republican votes--not a 
single Democratic vote. This partisan legislation also includes many 
provisions that are completely unrelated to border security; for 
example--listen to this one. How about this. Want to put this in a 
comprehensive border bill? It would prohibit funds from being used by 
the Department of Homeland Security to purchase electric vehicles for 
the Agency's law enforcement agents. What in the heck is that all 
about?
  This bill would also impose mandatory electronic employment 
verification, known as E-Verify, on every sector of the American 
economy.
  I left a meeting in my office with a person representing farmworkers 
in the State of North Carolina. Do you know what percentage of 
farmworkers in America working today, going out and harvesting the 
crops and fruits and vegetables, are undocumented? Fifty percent. Fifty 
percent are undocumented today. So this bill would impose mandatory E-
Verify and would include the agriculture industry and these 
undocumented workers. Fifty percent of agriculture workers would be 
unable to work.

  What would that do to our food supply chain? I can tell you, it would 
come to a grinding halt, and it would dramatically increase food 
prices. Hear that, America? This provision by the junior Senator from 
Texas would raise food prices on its own. Massive consequences for 
American families.
  This bill is so extreme, there was a bipartisan opposition to it in 
the House of Representatives. Under close scrutiny, this bill is simply 
not a serious effort to secure our border. It would harm our economy 
and make our country less safe and less secure.
  The bipartisan bill which Donald Trump and many of the Senate 
Republicans killed would have worked to move us in the right direction. 
We earlier had an opportunity to vote on this legislation that would 
have actually helped us on the border. Though I had some concerns about 
it, I thought it was a genuine bipartisan effort I could support.
  I was disappointed but hardly surprised that the vast majority of my 
Republican colleagues, including the junior Senator from Texas, who is 
making this motion today, voted against it--this bipartisan bill, with 
James Lankford's leadership on the Republican side, rejected out of 
hand by Republicans in the Senate.
  It is no surprise to me the junior Senator did that. The only time we 
brought a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration bill to the floor, he 
voted against that too. It is no surprise.
  This bill, written by the Senate Republicans' designated negotiator, 
Senator Lankford of Oklahoma, endorsed by the National Border Patrol 
Council, the union that represents Border Patrol agents--the Speaker of 
the House declared it dead on arrival in the House before the text was 
even released.
  We can only fix our broken immigration system if we do it on a 
bipartisan basis. Nobody gets their way around here. You have to work 
for compromise. It is clear that the House Republicans are unwilling to 
help secure the border under those terms. Instead, they want to 
maintain the crisis at the border to help score political points for 
their favorite candidate for President.
  Instead of a symbolic and failed effort to pass bipartisan bills that 
won't actually address challenges, let's work together on a bipartisan 
basis. Let's start with the Lankford bill. That is where the 
opportunity will be on the floor. If you want to change it, let's amend 
it. For goodness' sake, let's start with a bill that we agreed was 
going to be the starting point not too

[[Page S3794]]

long ago, before Donald Trump made his pronouncement, one that supports 
our frontline law enforcement officials, addresses the needs of the 
economy, provides a path to citizenship for Dreamers and immigrant 
farmworkers, and lives up to our Nation's legacy of providing safe 
harbor to refugees fleeing for their lives.
  The American people are tired of partisan bickering over immigration. 
They want us to work together to secure our border, support our 
economy, and stand by America's fundamental principles.
  Proudly, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, well, I would like to say I am surprised, 
but I am not. It is worth, though, pausing to reflect both on what the 
Senator from Illinois said and what he didn't say.
  What he didn't say: He didn't dispute the point I made about this 
Democrat bill they are having a show vote on later this week. He didn't 
dispute that this bill codifies catch-and-release; that it puts into 
Federal statute Joe Biden's lawless practice of releasing illegal 
immigrants when they are apprehended. He didn't dispute that.
  He didn't dispute that this bill would normalize 5,000 illegal 
immigrants a day, 1.8 million illegal immigrants a year, every year, 
forever. He didn't dispute that either.
  He didn't dispute that this bill would give illegal immigrants who 
are apprehended immediate work permits. He didn't dispute that. He 
didn't dispute that this bill would give many of them taxpayer-funded 
lawyers. And he also didn't dispute a point I have made many other 
times, though I didn't just make it, that it would give billions of 
dollars to the NGOs that are part of the human trafficking network; 
that it would fund the people trafficking millions into this country.
  He didn't dispute any of that. Instead, he said the standard Democrat 
line, which is: Trump, Trump, Trump. Trump is the bad guy. It is all 
Trump's fault.
  And I get that, in Democrat circles, Trump is the bogeyman. But there 
is a simple fact. When Donald Trump was in the White House and when he 
was actually working to secure the border, we had the lowest rate of 
illegal immigration in 45 years. When Joe Biden and the Democrats are 
in charge, we have the highest rate of illegal immigration in American 
history. That is a fact. And all the political smoke and mirrors from 
the Democrats can't hide that fact.

  But it is also interesting what he did say. He gave these epic words 
about Chicago welcoming immigrants. And he is right. Our country was 
built by legal immigrants, by people following the law, coming here the 
right way. My father came as an immigrant from Cuba. There is a right 
way to come following the rules.
  I found it striking, though, that when he was saying how much Chicago 
loves illegal immigrants, that he somehow omitted that the mayor of 
Chicago has declared an emergency because of the crisis of illegal 
immigrants flooding into the city of Chicago; illegal immigrants taking 
resources from the residents of Chicago; being housed in Chicago O'Hare 
Airport.
  We are seeing illegal immigrants in places like New York City being 
put in public schools and throwing Americans out of their facilities. 
The mayor of New York City--again, a liberal Democrat like the mayor of 
Chicago--has said illegal immigration is a crisis that is destroying 
New York City. And yet Senator Durbin told us, in essence, the 
Democrats are the party of open borders.
  He said farmworkers--we can't get anyone to work on the farm unless 
we have those open borders. Apparently, in the Democrats' view, 
Americans are lazy and don't want to work and the only way to grow our 
food is to open our borders to a full-on invasion. Listen, if some 
people have to die, if people have to get murdered by criminals and 
gangbangers released by Democrats day after day after day, that is an 
acceptable price to the Democrats.
  Because, if you listen to his criticism of H.R. 2, you know what he 
said? Well, the people who are here illegally, they wouldn't be able to 
work. My God, it would stop illegal immigration. That is his objection. 
That is the Democrats' objection. They object to this bill because it 
would do what they say they want to do. And the truth is, they don't 
want to do that.
  Joe Biden could secure the border today. He broke the border by 
unilateral action. Nothing prevents him from reversing those three 
decisions, from ending catch-and-release today. He won't do it. He 
doesn't want to do it. And every Democrat in this Chamber supports 
those open border policies.
  (Mr. MARKEY assumed the Chair.)
  I am going to close by observing the very real victims of the 
Democrats' open border policies. There are some Democrat policies that 
are victimless. This is not one of them.
  We have heard a lot about Laken Riley, but it is worth reflecting on 
what exactly happened to her, because the murderer who murdered her 
came from Venezuela illegally, and we caught him. We had him. He was 
apprehended in El Paso, TX. All Joe Biden had to do was follow the law. 
If he followed the law, what would he have done with an illegal 
immigrant from Venezuela? He would have put him on a plane and flown 
him back. But he didn't do that because Joe Biden and the Democrats 
have decided they want open borders. Instead, they released this 
illegal immigrant. They let him go. Now, what did he do? He went to New 
York City, and we caught him again. He committed another crime. This 
time, he endangered the safety of a child. New York City caught him. 
They arrested him. And what did New York have to do? All they had to do 
was follow the law and put him in jail. You know what, if they had done 
that, Laken Riley would still be alive. By the way, if Joe Biden and 
the Democrats had followed the law, Laken Riley would still be alive. 
But New York City is a sanctuary city, so they let him go again.
  The murderer came down to Georgia, and Laken Riley--a beautiful 22-
year-old woman, a nursing student--she went out jogging for what she 
thought was going to be a beautiful day and this murderer, this illegal 
immigrant the Democrats had released over and over again, picked up a 
brick and beat her to death. Mr. President, that is happening every 
week.
  Another name you don't hear Democrats say is Jeremy Caceres. Jeremy 
Caceres is a beautiful 2-year-old boy. He was murdered in Prince 
George's County, MD, just a few miles from where we are now, by another 
illegal immigrant who Joe Biden and the Democrats released.
  Mr. President, I want to finally point to a 15-year-old girl in your 
home State, in Boston, MA. Not only is the Biden administration 
allowing a completely open border and releasing illegal immigrants that 
are apprehended, but they are flying hundreds of thousands of illegal 
immigrants directly from their home countries into America.
  In this case, the Biden administration flew an illegal immigrant from 
Haiti to Boston, MA. He didn't try to cross illegally. The Biden 
administration said: Come on, get on an airplane. We will bring you to 
Boston. You know what he did in Boston? He has been arrested now for 
violently raping a 15-year-old girl with severe mental disabilities.

  This is sick. This is grotesque. And this is happening day after day 
after day. And we have a bill right now we could pass that would stop 
it. And the Democrats' answer is ``I object.'' And another American is 
going to be killed next week and the week after and the week after and 
the Democrats--all in the name of power--are perfectly fine with this.
  The good news is, an election is coming. In January 2025, with a new 
administration, we will solve this problem. We will secure the border. 
We will stop this invasion. And we will protect the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 685

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, if my Democratic colleagues were really 
serious about addressing the crisis unfolding on our border, they would 
demand Senator Schumer immediately take up H.R. 2 instead of this 
counterproductive and excessively, at best, weak bill that would, if 
anything, only make matters worse along the border.

[[Page S3795]]

  Sadly, they are not. We know that by their actions--their actions 
today--actions we have seen just moments ago. We are still encountering 
close to 180,000 illegal immigrants at our southern border each and 
every month. Since President Biden took office, there have been over 
9.5 million illegal immigrant encounters nationwide. Those are just the 
ones we know about. The actual estimates put it 12 to 13 million that 
may have crossed illegally. Over 350 individuals on the terrorist 
watchlist have been stopped while trying to cross the southern border. 
Over 27,583 citizens of communist China have been encountered at the 
southwest border in the last year alone.
  By any metric, this administration has no interest in securing our 
border. In fact, quite to the contrary. The data suggests this 
administration wants as many illegal immigrants to enter the country as 
possible. My Democratic colleagues want us to pretend Republicans are 
somehow responsible for creating or prolonging the crisis. Why? Because 
we were unwilling to pass a bad immigration bill masquerading as a 
border security bill; a bill that would have normalized thousands of 
illegal entries at our border each month.
  I continue to believe that H.R. 2 would solve most of our most vexing 
problems at our southern border. It is not that you have to have new 
legislation to fix it, but this would fix it. It would fix it because 
it would cabin President Biden's authority to allow this to continue to 
happen. He doesn't need legislation. He could do this all on his own.
  But back to the point. If the Democrats were serious here, that is 
what Democrats would allow us to do is to take up and pass H.R. 2. 
Sadly, that offer was rejected moments ago. And so trying to find 
something that will work, I am offering a smaller, narrower bill; a 
bill that doesn't contain all the same provisions, but that would help 
alleviate the crisis by closing some of the most gaping loopholes in 
the law that are allowing this thing to continue. Again, cabining the 
President's discretion, forcing his hand so as to make it more 
difficult for him to perpetuate this cycle of illegal border crossings.
  To be clear, this isn't the entire answer. But if my Democratic 
colleagues can't agree to those commonsense reforms found in H.R. 2, 
then if they can't agree to consider these reforms that are narrower 
than I am offering, how, honestly, can we take their concern about the 
border crisis seriously?
  The Stopping Border Surges Act would address loopholes in our 
immigration laws which create some of the perverse incentives for 
illegal immigration. It would clarify that an adult cannot bring a 
child into this country expecting that child to be his or her ticket to 
avoid detention. This bill would help eliminate the disturbing 
recycling of children and babies by coyotes and by international drug 
cartels. It would allow all unaccompanied children to be returned to 
their home countries, thus ending the incentive for parents to send 
their young children here alone.
  Sadly, we see what is happening to those children under the 
supervision of the Biden administration and Secretary Mayorkas. They 
are trafficked either into child slavery, sex slavery, as drug mules, 
or some combination of the above.
  My bill would require the Department of Health and Human Services to 
provide the Department of Homeland Security with biographical 
information about the persons to whom children are released. It 
would require asylum seekers to apply for and be denied asylum in at 
least one safe country on their route to the United States. It would 
combat the Biden administration's obliteration of the credible fear 
standard by tightening that standard back to where it should be. The 
correct application of this standard is pivotal to operation of our 
asylum system; for it to be there for those who need it and are 
entitled to it while protecting it from being abused as it has been. It 
has been corrupted over the last 3\1/2\ years. More recently, it has 
gotten much, much worse. In fact, the Biden administration has, you 
might say, destroyed it entirely. We must fix it. We have an obligation 
to do so.

  This Stopping Border Surges Act would also close loopholes and 
restrict asylum to aliens who present themselves at an official port of 
entry. We must eliminate the loopholes, not allow this administration 
to continue to expand them and, indeed, to make more of them.
  Congress must take back the authority to establish law. We can start 
that today with the Stopping Borders Surges Act. Ending the ambiguities 
in our current law will help mitigate the situation at the border and 
prevent unaccountable bureaucrats from acting with impunity as the 
despots in miniature that they have become to enforce their own policy 
preferences at their own will and whim.
  So I urge my colleagues to support what I am about to do here, which 
is to ask that we consider this bill. Keep in mind, just a moment ago, 
I had colleagues offer up to pass by unanimous consent H.R. 2. I am 
offering a narrower, more targeted fix and I am asking unanimous 
consent, not that it be passed right now, but just we be allowed to 
consider it. We bring it up, we debate it and discuss it, and dispose 
of it with votes.
  To that end, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 685 
and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Recapping, we have a bipartisan bill. Republicans in the 
Senate said: We have a negotiator here. Don't bring anybody new to the 
table. His name is James Lankford. He is a conservative Senator from 
the State of Oklahoma.
  I respect him and I like him, and he headed up there to negotiate.
  On our side, we had Chris Murphy, Senator from Connecticut, and 
Kyrsten Sinema, Senator from Arizona, Independent Democratic. The three 
worked, not for weeks, but months to put together a bipartisan bill.
  The bill that they put together was endorsed by the National Border 
Patrol Council. When I heard the stories said by the junior Senator 
from Texas about the terrible things that would occur if that bill 
would pass, I wondered: Did he consider stopping to talk to the Border 
Patrol agents who endorsed the bill and thought from a law enforcement 
perspective at the border that it made sense?
  We were ready to go. We were getting a bipartisan bill and it was the 
beginning of negotiations to do something about the border. We need to 
do something about the border.
  Then what happened? And this is a matter of record. Everyone has seen 
it, all the clips on television. They went to the punitive--I guess 
that is the word--Republican candidate for President of the United 
States, Donald Trump, and said: We have a bill, a bipartisan bill to 
consider in the Senate. He said: Kill it. Stop the bill. Don't vote for 
it. I would rather have the issue, and I don't want to give Joe Biden 
any credit for anything. Even though we endorsed this bipartisan bill, 
we are going to be against it, and everybody who is loyal to me needs 
to vote no. Guess what? Virtually all the Republican Senators voted no.
  That was the end of the bipartisan conversation about the border.
  Take a look at what is being proposed by my colleague and friend 
Senator Lee from Utah. This bill targets the most vulnerable people 
seeking safety and protection in the United States: children traveling 
to the United States without a parent or guardian, families with minor 
children, and asylum seekers fleeing persecution.
  This bill would strip away protections for unaccompanied children. It 
would deport many of these kids back into the hands of smugglers who 
exploit them, keep others in detention up to 1 month. Do you know what 
detention on the border is for a child? It is a cage. I have seen them. 
That is exactly what would happen. They would sit in these cages for a 
month, keep them separated from adults who would care for them.
  This bill would require families to be detained--``detained'' is a 
nice word for ``incarcerated''--a failed policy that

[[Page S3796]]

has disastrous effects on kids and doesn't make the border more secure.
  This bill would impose multiple new restrictions on asylum, 
undermining our longstanding, bipartisan commitment to refugees seeking 
safety.
  The Biden administration is doing what it can do now to secure the 
border under our outdated immigration laws. The Biden administration 
endorsed the bipartisan bill, which these Republican Senators all voted 
against. The administration has dramatically increased deportations of 
those who are not eligible, made tough changes to our asylum system, 
and improved access to lawful pathways to deter illegal immigration.
  But, ultimately, do you know whose responsibility it is to write this 
bill? Congress's. Do you know what the best starting point is? The 
bipartisan Lankford bill that came to the floor of the Senate. That is 
what we are going to offer on the floor. If you want to negotiate from 
there, if you want to offer amendments to that, be my guest. That is 
what the Senate is all about. But the notion by the Senator from Utah 
that this ought to be the starting point I think is a bad idea.
  Recently, a bipartisan group of Senators and the White House 
negotiated a good starting point. It was written by their negotiator. I 
respect him, and I think all Members of the Senate should. Yet, when it 
came to a vote, the vast majority of Republicans wouldn't support it.
  I just want to close by saying this: This is an issue I have worked 
on for my entire career in the Senate. I introduced the DREAM Act over 
20 years ago. I really believe this is a challenge which we can only 
solve on a bipartisan basis. I think that the Lankford bill is a good 
starting point.
  Let's come together and work together on a bipartisan starting point, 
ignore Donald Trump, who says he doesn't want this to move forward, and 
let's do something the American people really want. To aspire to that 
goal, I object to this approach to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, this is unfortunate. Keep in mind what just 
happened here. I asked not that we pass this bill but that we move to 
its consideration, that we be allowed to debate it, discuss it, and 
ultimately dispose of it through votes after having an opportunity to 
review its merits and to consider amendments. That, too, drew an 
objection even though this would allow the body to work its will 
through amendments, and we could get to a point where perhaps we could 
agree on something.
  Instead, we see absolute fealty pledged to this bill, what is being 
referred to as the bipartisan bill. Now, with all due respect to those 
who negotiated it, keep in mind, Senators in the room were two Members 
of the Democratic caucus and one Republican, and then you add to that 
the White House--a significant player even if you don't weight the 
White House as more than just one Senator equivalent. Putting it 
generously, this is a 3-to-1 negotiation. Yet this negotiation went on 
for many months. During most of that time, most of us were unaware of 
what was being discussed. As soon as the details started to leak out, 
as soon as we started to become aware of them, many of us started 
publicly and privately expressing our concerns, first in private and 
then in public.

  Look, separate and apart from what the 45th President of the United 
States had to say about it, many--I would say most of us in the Senate 
Republican conference had already formed our opinions and decided to 
oppose the bill based on its own terms long before the 45th President 
of the United States weighed in on it. Long before Donald Trump said a 
word about this, we were concerned. We always would have been concerned 
even had he not weighed in, based on the merits of the bill.
  Look, the bill itself didn't do what it was supposed to do, and it 
kept referring to one of my colleagues as the designated authorized 
representative. Well, when you are authorized and designated as a 
representative of one or more individuals--in this case, 49 
individuals--that still presupposes that you are negotiating something 
consistent with their express desires and subject to their approval.
  When at last we became aware of the details of it, we decided this is 
not nearly what we talked about, not what we ordered, and so we 
rejected it. Again, this was underway long before President Trump ever 
said a word about it. So it isn't accurate to describe this bipartisan 
bill--which, by the way, at the end of the day, received only 4 out of 
49 Senate Republicans supporting it on the Senate floor. I believe it 
would probably receive less than that even today. It is minimally 
bipartisan at best.
  Now, as to the suggestion that my bill, the Stopping Border Surges 
Act, and bare consideration of it--not just that it be passed into law 
but that we be allowed to even consider it--he says that it somehow 
targets vulnerable people, including children, for inhumane treatment. 
Do you know what is inhumane? What is inhumane is perpetuating a system 
that incentivizes the kidnapping, the renting, the borrowing, the 
leasing, the recycling of children for the purpose of creating a ruse 
by which adults can avoid detention, sometimes sending the same kids 
back through the system over and over and over again as if they were 
poker chips or something like that. Look, children are not props. 
Children certainly are not there as currency to facilitate illegal 
immigration.
  Are there human rights violations? Yes. Constantly, incessantly, 
directly as a result of this. Somewhere between, I don't know, 35 
percent at the low end and 65 percent at the high end of the women and 
girls who are trafficked into this country by the drug cartels--which 
are making tens of billions of dollars a year under the Biden 
administration's deliberately lax policy--are subjected to rape, to 
sexual assault, in many cases, to sex slavery.
  In many instances, people can't afford the many thousands of dollars 
they have to pay to the cartels in order to be trafficked, so what do 
they do? Well, they work it off. How do they work it off? They do what 
they can, what they are told to. In many circumstances, we know exactly 
what that means.
  So don't talk to me about this being an inhumane bill. This is a bill 
that would stop the inhumanity. This is a bill that would tighten the 
restrictions so that this doesn't happen anymore, so that kids aren't 
recycled, so that they are not kidnapped, sold, borrowed, rented, and 
recycled as props to facilitate illegal immigration.
  Anyone who suggests this is humane isn't looking at the reality of 
the circumstances and at the lives lost even before you get to the 
Americans whose lives have been ended or have ended in tragedy or met 
with tragedy unnecessarily by people who should never have been in this 
country to begin with and then carry out crimes--some too heinous to 
describe on the Senate floor. Even before you get to those Americans 
who have met tragically with fate in those ways, just look at the 
inhumane treatment received by those who are being trafficked.
  The humane thing to do here is not to perpetuate this cycle. There is 
nothing humane about allowing human beings to be trafficked on this 
scale, enriching international drug cartels whose object is lucre and 
whose means inevitably involve violence. Shame on all of us if we don't 
do this. Shame on the Senate for not being willing. Shame on the Senate 
Democrats not being willing today even to consider a bill that would 
bring that to an end.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4225

  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I rise today to ask this body to 
immediately consider the Demanding Citizenship in D.C. Elections Act. 
Right now, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants here on U.S. 
soil. That is enough to replace the entire population of 36 States, 
including the population of Kansas, almost 4 times over.
  When I am back home, I often get asked: Why does Joe Biden allow 5- 
to 10,000 people to cross our border illegally every day? Why would the 
Democrats rush millions of people--many unvetted--into our country over 
the past 3\1/2\ years? Why is our national security an afterthought? 
How can the President hear Laken Riley's story and the story of so many 
others who have died or been assaulted by the impacts of this border 
crisis and not do anything? How does he sleep at night?
  When I think about his reaction to these questions, it becomes very 
clear

[[Page S3797]]

what is happening. The President is worried about the next election, 
not the next generation and not our national security.
  Look, this White House has created the worst border crisis in our 
Nation's history and has incentivized the unlawful crossings at our 
southern border in hopes that these migrants will be future Democrat 
voters, with the expectation that the census, which is based upon 
population, will bring in more Democrat seats in Congress, with hopes 
of cooking the books for elections to come.
  This is election interference by design, with the ultimate goal being 
the unravelling of our free and fair elections by engineering the 
largest scale invasion of our country and turning those people out at 
the ballot box. The Democrats are courting these 11 million people, 
including terrorists, dangerous drug cartels, and Chinese nationalists, 
as future voters. They are giving them free healthcare, pricey hotel 
stays, flights, cell phones, and more, and reminding them to pay it 
back. Where? At the ballot box.
  If you don't believe me, look no further than what is happening right 
here in our Nation's Capital, in Washington, DC. Illegal aliens are now 
voting in local elections. Let me say that again. You can't make this 
up. Illegal aliens are now voting in local elections in our Nation's 
Capital.
  Folks, this is just the beginning for the DNC and serves as the 
roadmap that they are building to tip the balance and dismantle the 
integrity of our electoral process across the entire country, and that 
is why I am asking this body to consider the Demanding Citizenship in 
D.C. Elections Act immediately.
  Washington, DC, as we all know, falls under the jurisdiction of 
Congress. The intent of our Founding Fathers was to prevent any single 
State from gaining undue power by hosting the Federal Government. With 
the oversight powers bestowed on us here in Congress, it is our 
obligation and duty to stop this election interference.
  The American people want free and fair elections. They want to trust 
that their vote won't be superseded by the millions of illegal aliens 
that have been transported across the United States. So I rise today to 
give my colleagues across the aisle the opportunity to show the 
American people that the Democratic Party believes in election 
integrity and our democratic electoral process. If they do, then they 
should have no problem supporting our legislation that explicitly 
states that illegal aliens cannot vote in DC elections.
  Now, some of my colleagues across the aisle continue to deny that 
illegal aliens are voting in our elections. For the sake of this 
argument, let's take them at our word. If they say illegals are not 
voting in our elections, then what is the harm in passing legislation 
to ensure that it never happens? Let's assure the American people that 
we have the same goal of citizen-only representation in our electoral 
process. Now, unfortunately, the left won't do this because they know 
it is factually incorrect, and they need those votes.
  This is election interference by design, with the ultimate goal being 
the unravelling of our free and fair elections by engineering the 
largest scale invasion of our country and turning them out at the 
ballot box.
  Unfortunately, when my colleagues across the aisle block this 
legislation today, they are showing their cards--that, for Democrats, 
the border crisis is not a crisis at all; it is their campaign trail to 
victory. This is the Democrats' playbook. If this call for unanimous 
consent fails, the American people will know the Democrats' true 
motivation for this border crisis.
  We the people must fight back. Too much is at stake. Our democracy as 
we know it is under attack by this administration. This legislation is 
a good start on ensuring the integrity of our elections.
  Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged 
from further consideration of S. 4225 and the Senate proceed to its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. Reserving the right to object, the question here is about 
the control by Congress over the District of Columbia governance and 
the right to self-govern.
  There has been a tendency in this Congress, and there is debate in 
this Congress, about whether there should be home rule for Washington. 
I believe there should be. Many of my colleagues don't. And this 
Congress does have authority.
  But what is really at stake here is the question of whether a law 
passed by the city council of the District of Columbia should be 
allowed to go into effect or overwritten by action here. My view is 
that the elected representatives have the right and the responsibility 
to pass laws that go with being a self-governing city council.
  The question of the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act--that 
is what we are talking about--was passed by the city council. It is the 
will of the representatives of the people of this city, through their 
representatives, to allow this to happen.
  This initiative has been something that has been taken up by other 
local governments in other States, where the prerogative is to make 
their own laws with respect to voting. And I believe that the District 
of Columbia should have that ability to pass these laws without 
interference from Congress.
  Now, this was challenged in court. In March, the U.S. District Court 
for DC dismissed a constitutional challenge to the Local Resident 
Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022.
  Also, as a practical matter, voting has already begun in DC's 2024 
primary elections. Senator Marshall's bill would absolutely cause chaos 
in the ongoing election.
  So while folks can disagree on the policy, at the end of the day, 
this is settled local policy matter.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's comments on 
this issue. I will point out a couple of important facts.
  The Constitution clearly gives the U.S. Congress the power to govern 
Washington, DC. Washington, DC is not a State. It is a Federal 
district. Our Founding Fathers wanted it that way. They didn't want one 
State to have more control over the Federal Government than another.
  And we think about the issues going on in Washington, DC, right now. 
This Federal district has turned into a war zone. It is no longer safe 
for our staff to walk to and from their jobs. Almost every week, we are 
seeing somebody physically assaulted, carjackings, stabbings. It is to 
the point where I am afraid for folks from back home to come visit us, 
and our folks from back home deserve the right to safely petition their 
government.
  Look, the city council, the Mayor of Washington, DC, have blown it. 
They have not taken their responsibilities seriously, and that is why 
we need to usurp that power back. We need to do what the Constitution 
says. And we certainly don't want illegal aliens promoting this 
cashless bail, defund-the-police program. We need more security in 
Washington, DC, not less.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                              S.J. Res. 58

  Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I would like to speak in support of the 
Biden-Harris administration's finalized furnace efficiency standards 
and against S.J. Res. 58.
  The Department of Energy's finalized rule has been a long time 
coming, and we have not meaningfully updated the standards since the 
1990s. Technology has advanced, but our regulations haven't kept up.
  Now, let me just talk, first of all, about the importance of 
efficiency in the role that regulations can play in allowing efficiency 
to benefit consumers and our environment. When we have standards, it 
means that the manufacturers compete with the production of products 
that meet those standards. It is not a race to the bottom. It is a 
level playing field for those in the manufacturing industry that want 
to sell their products to consumers.
  Having standards that are reasonable--and these are very reasonable--
then allows these better products to be sold, and the competition is a 
restraint on the price that is charged.
  So efficiency has always been something that can help us do the 
following:

[[Page S3798]]

No. 1, reduce carbon emissions. The less energy that is used, the less 
carbon emissions are created.
  No. 2, it saves money. At the end of the day, you have a more 
efficient appliance. It is going to use less energy by whatever means 
that energy has been produced.
  No. 3, it tends to create jobs. The folks who manufacture these have 
workers. They have good jobs, and it is really important.
  In Vermont, we face very high heating bills, and one of the reasons 
we want and fully support more efficient furnaces is to get those bills 
down. With a furnace that isn't up to the new standard, a family can 
face $600 in additional heating bills annually, and that is a lot of 
money for a lot of Vermonters.
  The efficiency rule here has the potential to reduce the average 
household energy cost by $50 a year and $350 over the lifetime.
  Many of the policies that we have worked on to pass through the 
Inflation Reduction Act will also help mitigate the costs. When you are 
doing an upgrade for some of your home appliances under the HOMES Act, 
you can get a taxpayer rebate, reducing the cost of what this will be.
  These standards can also be especially helpful for lower income folks 
who rent their homes and, also, often face very high energy bills, 
largely because there is not an incentive for the landlord to provide a 
more efficient furnace.
  By the way, the standards will make a major impact in our carbon 
emissions, cutting 332 metric tons over the next 30 years. And that is 
equivalent to the annual emissions from 34 percent of U.S. households.
  So, for over a decade, Canada has had very similar furnace efficiency 
standards and has seen that there have not been significant issues with 
implementation. We should follow suit and implement the Department of 
Energy's standards to realize all of the important benefits I just 
mentioned.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against S.J. Res. 58 and show strong 
support for the efficiency policy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Welch). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the 
Congressional Review Act resolution, which would overturn the 
Department of Energy's furnace efficiency standard. A vote for this 
resolution is a vote for higher costs for American families, a vote for 
higher temperatures for future generations, and a vote for 
scaremongering over science.
  What you have just said on the Senate floor, Senator Welch, is a 
complete reflection of my own views about this issue.
  Families face high energy bills. They are afraid of climate chaos. 
But instead of tackling those problems head-on, we are instead burying 
our heads in the sand. By attacking a commonsense upgrade to energy 
efficiency standards, this resolution seems to have come straight from 
the American Gas Association's playbook: Use more natural gas. That is 
their plan: Send greenhouse gases up into the atmosphere to dangerously 
warm our planet. That is the plan of the American Gas Association.
  I am the House author of the National Appliance Energy Conservation 
Act, which was passed in 1987 and authorized the Department of Energy 
to set binding standards for appliance energy efficiency. And so that 
set the minimum standard of energy efficiency for 13 types of 
appliances: air conditioners, refrigerators, freezers, washers, dryers, 
gas furnaces.
  And that law has been updated many times over the years and now 
covers about 60 products. And it is estimated that my appliance 
efficiency act, which became law over 3\1/2\ decades ago, has done more 
to save energy than any other Federal policy in buildings in our 
country's history.
  And what is the central premise? It is just working smarter, not 
harder; using less electricity, using less energy--working smarter, not 
harder.
  My mother always said to me: Eddie, you have to learn how to work 
that way--that was before she would say that she was going to donate my 
brain to Harvard Medical School as a completely unused human organ--
because if you don't work smarter, you are going to work harder.
  That is what the American Gas Association wants. It wants to ``drill, 
baby, drill.'' But it is drilling into the pockets of consumers. It is 
the result in greenhouse gases going up into the atmosphere, which, 
ultimately, are going to cause incredible storms, incredible climate 
consequences, when we could just reduce the amount of energy which we 
are consuming. How hard is that?
  During the Trump era, the Department of Energy missed its 28 
deadlines to update the appliance standards, as they are supposed to do 
by law every single 6-year period, and they left the backlog to 
President Biden. And the Biden administration has been making up for 
lost time, already completing 24 rules with about a dozen left in front 
of them this year, which, when finalized, will save consumers nearly $1 
trillion and 2.5 billion metric tons of carbon emissions over 30 years.
  That is working smarter, not harder. You save money, and you reduce 
greenhouse gases.
  Gas furnaces, as the Senator from Vermont was mentioning, have an 
outsized impact on household bills, as residential heating is the 
largest source of energy consumption for most families. And when a 
furnace is installed in a household, it lasts a very long time.
  This resolution is directly at odds with the welfare of working-class 
families and renters, who often spend a disproportionate amount of 
their income on energy bills. And renters don't even get to pick their 
furnace, just pay the bills for it.
  Winter heating bills are a huge burden for families, with some forced 
to make impossible choices, nearly every month, between paying for 
food, medicine, and basic necessities like heat.
  Before this new rule that the gas lobby--the natural gas lobby--would 
so desperately like to go up in smoke, we haven't seen any meaningful 
update on gas furnace efficiency standards since Congress first set 
them in my bill in 1987. That is the American Gas Association at work.
  As much as it might be helpful for climate change, public health, and 
national security, the Department of Energy's standards do not phase 
out gas furnaces. The rule getting targeted by this resolution doesn't 
even address existing gas furnaces, nor is the rule effective 
immediately. Instead, this rule we are debating today will ensure that 
all new gas furnaces meet a 95-percent fuel efficiency threshold 
starting in 2028--plenty of running room for the industry, plenty of 
notice, but plenty of benefits, ultimately, for consumers in their home 
heating bills and a reduction in greenhouse gases for the next 
generation of Americans who are afraid that they are going to be left 
paying the bill for all of the consequences of out-of-control climate 
change, which these furnaces contribute to in a major way.
  This provides for a slow phaseout of older, less efficient furnaces 
while leaving more efficient furnaces on the market that already make 
up nearly half of all current models. The furnace efficiency standards 
alone will cut 332 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions from 
furnaces over 30 years as well as other pollutants like methane and 
nitrous oxides. That is equal to taking 79 million gas-powered cars off 
the roads or cutting the annual emissions of 85 coal-fired powerplants. 
They won't be needed. The 85 coal-burning plants won't be needed 
because the electricity won't be needed because the furnaces will be so 
much more efficient.
  Furnace manufacturers like this rule because it spurs innovation. 
Customers like this rule because it will save them money. Families like 
this rule because it would reduce the amount of toxic gas they are 
inhaling on a daily basis, reducing risks of asthma, heart disease, and 
premature deaths. The more you inhale, the more dangerous it is for the 
children in the house and for pregnant women in the house. Scientists 
like this rule because it will cut how much climate change-causing 
pollution we are sending up into the atmosphere.
  The American Gas Association, which filed a legal challenge that is 
oddly similar to my colleague's CRA language, does not like this rule 
because it will cut how many customers are dependent on their product. 
It will eat into their already astronomical

[[Page S3799]]

profits. It is the wealthiest industry in the history of the world, but 
they want more even if consumers could save. They want the hot and 
toxic status quo to remain in place. They are afraid that our country 
will become ever more efficient or even decarbonized and continue on 
without them, so they are acting out of corporate fear to destroy our 
chance at a livable future. Repealing the standards would saddle 
millions of Americans with unnecessarily high heating bills for decades 
to come.
  Let me be clear. Energy poverty is a racial justice issue. It is an 
economic justice issue. It is an environmental justice issue. We must 
take steps today to remedy this injustice.
  Even though an efficient furnace may cost slightly more on the market 
today, costs will continue to fall, and households will be more than 
paid back in lower energy bills year after year after year. They will 
have much lower emissions that are being sent out. They will have more 
innovation. They will have more healthcare benefits. All of that will 
flow to ordinary Americans unless the American Gas Association has its 
way with this U.S. Senate.
  So my colleagues will rant and rave about the need to constantly 
drill, baby, drill to get enough fossil fuels to keep our grid running. 
They love to fearmonger about reliability issues and how we can keep 
the lights on. But the cleanest, cheapest, and most reliable megawatt 
of energy is the one we never have to use. That is why everyone who 
supports a reliable grid should support energy efficiency standards--
working smarter and not harder.
  We shouldn't sacrifice savings, our grid, our health, and our climate 
on the altar of the American Gas Association. A moderate increase in 
energy efficiency for furnaces just makes sense. This radical proposal 
to reverse this energy efficiency standard should be rejected, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote no.
  This today will be a vote for the future. It will be a vote for 
future generations. It will be a vote to say that finally the Senate is 
serious about dealing with this crisis that is affecting our planet and 
the next generation of children in our country.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for his leadership on this issue, and I 
urge a rejection of this proposal coming from the American Gas 
Association.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my resolution to 
disapprove of the Biden Department of Energy's final rule targeting gas 
furnaces.
  In October of last year, the Biden Department of Energy announced a 
final rule on energy efficiency standards for gas furnaces, and in 
December, the Agency published the final rule mandating that gas 
furnaces achieve an efficiency standard of 95 percent when right now, 
residential gas furnaces only require an efficiency standard of 80 
percent.
  This rule would remove up to 60 percent of current residential 
furnaces from the market and would impact 55 percent of American 
households. It would have a terrible, negative effect on families who 
are already struggling with historic inflation numbers under the Biden 
administration, and it would force consumers to spend thousands of 
dollars they don't have on renovations to accommodate a new gas furnace 
or to switch to an electric appliance, which could mean higher monthly 
utility bills for families.

  In Texas, 25 percent of households have a natural gas furnace, and of 
those, over 45 percent would be negatively impacted, meaning they would 
spend more to retrofit their homes and to purchase and install a 
furnace than they would save over the life of the appliance.
  Now, in every State and in the State of Texas, some Texans may choose 
to move to an electric appliance for a variety of reasons, and some may 
decide they would like to stick with a gas furnace, but with this Biden 
rule in effect, Texans won't have a choice, and neither will the 
residents of the other 49 States. The Biden administration will have 
made the decision for them.
  Texans aren't alone in this. Other States are in a similar situation. 
For example, 39 percent of Arizonans with a natural gas furnace would 
lose money from this rule. Let me give you some percentages from some 
other States picked almost at random. These are the percentages of 
households with natural gas furnaces that would be negatively impacted 
in the following States: in Pennsylvania, 33 percent; in West Virginia, 
47 percent; in Montana, 36 percent; in Wisconsin, 16 percent; in 
Michigan, 35 percent; in Nevada, a staggering 63 percent negatively 
impacted; in Maryland, 57 percent; and in the State of Ohio, 47 percent 
of those households would be negatively impacted.
  This rule is a continuation of the Biden administration's 
capitulation to environmental radicals, who value following climate 
dogma more than helping families actually provide for their kids and 
save for the future.
  Joe Biden, when he campaigned in 2020, told voters that if they 
elected him, he would halt drilling onshore and offshore in the United 
States. In his first week in office, he shut down the Keystone Pipeline 
and destroyed 11,000 jobs with a stroke of a pen, including 8,000 union 
jobs.
  Joe Biden shut down all new leases on Federal land, onshore and 
offshore.
  He shut down development in ANWR, putting in place banking regulators 
and SEC regulators to cut off debt financing and to cut off equity 
financing for energy exploration and development.
  He put a tax--yes, a tax--on natural gas production despite the cost-
of-living crisis many Americans are facing because of failed Democrat 
policies.
  That is why I introduced this Congressional Review Act--to help 
alleviate the unending assault on American families from President 
Biden and the Democrats' radical energy agenda.
  The average household in Texas has spent $5,113 more on energy due to 
inflation since January 2021, and $5,113 is a lot of money for a lot of 
families. This administration's answer to those struggling is that it 
is more important to appease the environmental radicals than to allow 
you to pay your rent or pay your mortgage or to save for your family or 
to put money away for your kids in a college fund.
  What is maddening is that this is done, they say, to reduce carbon 
emissions and to help the environment, but why would Americans take 
them at their word on this? This is the same administration that has no 
problem burdening U.S. oil and gas producers, who maintain the highest 
environmental standards in the world, but refused to crack down on Iran 
for shipping 2 million barrels of oil a day all around the world. It is 
the same administration that in one breath wants to reduce emissions 
globally but will then ban new U.S. permits to ship liquid natural gas 
overseas, leaving our allies to fend for themselves and driving them to 
burn dirtier coal, emit more carbon, and pollute the environment even 
more.
  So if you care about reducing emissions, this administration has been 
an abject failure. Instead of delivering actual solutions, it is their 
belief that putting a de facto ban on your gas furnace is more 
important than addressing record coal consumption in China--the biggest 
polluter on the face of the planet.
  According to the Department of Energy's own estimate, 91 to 95 
percent of furnace replacements will be at an annual fuel utilization 
efficiency rate of 92 percent or higher by 2028. So according to the 
Department of Energy's own estimate, this rule is unnecessary.
  The folks who can already afford the higher cost of a new gas furnace 
can buy one, but Americans who can least afford another price shock 
after suffering under Bidenflation for years will be hurt the most.
  I want the Presiding Officer to listen to these data. According to 
some estimates, the Department of Energy rule will lead to higher 
prices for 30 percent of senior citizen households, for 27 percent of 
small businesses, and for 26 percent of low-income households.
  This rule represents the fundamental transformation of the Democratic 
Party. There was a time the Democratic Party called itself the party of 
the working class. That is no longer the case. Today's Democratic Party 
cares more about the money from California environmentalist 
billionaires than they do about the jobs or the monthly budgets of 
hard-working families in America.
  Today, the blue-collar family in America is the Republican Party 
because the Democratic Party looked at

[[Page S3800]]

their union brethren and said: We don't care about you anymore. We are 
chasing the money.
  That is why groups like the National Federation of Independent 
Business, which represents 300,000 small businesses across the country, 
strongly support this CRA.
  Perhaps it should come as no surprise that the Biden administration 
is being sued for this illegal rule. The law that empowers the 
Department of Energy to set efficiency standards was passed during the 
energy scarcity of the 1970s, but the law also contains a prohibition 
against weaponizing efficiency standards to eliminate entire product 
categories like this rule seeks to do.
  The American people are required to comply with Joe Biden's rule 
effectively banning affordable gas furnaces on December 18, 2028. 
Congress should come together and vote for the resolution to stop this 
rule. Doing so would save American families and American seniors 
thousands and thousands of dollars as well as save American jobs. We 
should do this without delay.

                          ____________________