[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.
____________________