[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 142 (Thursday, September 12, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6013-S6015]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

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

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Executive Calendar No. 649, Kevin Gafford Ritz, of 
     Tennessee, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth 
     Circuit.
         Charles E. Schumer, Richard J. Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, 
           John W. Hickenlooper, Sheldon Whitehouse, Tina Smith, 
           Alex Padilla, Tammy Baldwin, Tammy Duckworth, 
           Christopher Murphy, Patty Murray, Jack Reed, Angus S. 
           King, Jr., Gary C. Peters, Peter Welch, Margaret Wood 
           Hassan, Brian Schatz.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Kevin Gafford Ritz, of Tennessee, to be United States 
Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the 
Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Marshall), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance), and the Senator 
from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 239 Ex.]

                                YEAS--49

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Helmy
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     McConnell
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Daines
     Ernst
     Kennedy
     Marshall
     Moran
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Vance
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Butler). On this vote, the yeas are 49, 
the nays are 42.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                            Border Security

  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I ended up being a topic of 
conversation for the past month and a half or so in a lot of political 
conversations about immigration and the border. So I want to be able to 
come to this body and to say the immigration issues are still 
unresolved, but there has been a lot of rewriting of what actually has 
happened in the past year and all the negotiations.
  Vice President Harris made a comment publicly just a few weeks ago, 
when she said:

       Let me be clear. After decades in law enforcement, I know 
     the importance of safety and security, especially at our 
     border. Last year, Joe and I brought together Democrats and 
     conservative Republicans to write the strongest border bill 
     in decades.

  I mean no disrespect to the Vice President, but we had 4 months of 
negotiations. She neither initiated those negotiations nor participated 
in a single second of those negotiations--not one second.
  The Vice President's staff was never involved in any of the 
negotiations. The negotiations took 4 months because the people that 
sat down at the table all determined: We are in a very bad place. We 
need to resolve the chaos that is happening at our southern border.
  For the first 6 weeks of those negotiations, the White House refused 
to participate at all in the negotiation--either from the President's 
staff, the President, or the Vice President or Vice President's staff. 
So for the first 6 weeks of the 4 months of negotiations, the White 
House didn't want to discuss it. After 6 weeks, the White House then 
got involved in the negotiations. So it was three Senators and the 
White House to be able to walk through that.
  Then, again for the next 3 months of our negotiations, it was a 
constant fight to get anything agreed to to secure our southern border. 
What we came up with and was the final agreement wasn't everything that 
I wanted, but it was enough to, at least, begin to make a change in 
what was happening at our southern border.
  It was a pretty straightforward process. Asylum is very difficult to 
achieve. Only about 3 percent of the people that actually go through 
the hearings actually achieve asylum, but you don't find out that until 
usually 6 or 8 years after you have already been and have already gone 
through this long process.
  So now we have thousands of people crossing our border asking for 
asylum, not because they believe they qualify but because they know 
they will stay here somewhere between 6 and 10 years while they wait 
for the hearing. And they, at least, get a decade in America, and then 
many of them then disappear.
  So what we could get to agreement was, when you cross the border, you 
would cross the border--first person each day, they would have a much 
faster screening than would take hours or days, and they would be 
screened at the standard that was at the end. So instead of waiting 6 
or 8 years or 10 years to get that final decision, you would get it 
rapidly.
  So the first person that would cross each day would cross, would be 
quickly screened under a brandnew process, and then 97 percent of them 
would be deported immediately because they don't qualify for asylum, 
and everyone knows the joke. So first day, first person: You cross, 
quickly screened under a new process, deported immediately.
  But if we got 5,000 people crossing, we don't have enough staff to 
screen that many people, so we created a border emergency authority 
that if you cross the border and you have got 5,000 people flooding the 
border and we don't have the staffing to do it, no one gets screened; 
you just get arrested and deported. So first person: cross, screened, 
deported. If we are overwhelmed by the cartels with high numbers, you 
just are deported immediately, and no one is screened. That is what we 
could finally come up with as an agreement.
  Now, I have to tell you, I felt like that would dramatically slow the 
flow at our southern border and it would deal with the core issue that 
is the abuse of asylum. But there were a lot of issues I couldn't get 
agreement on that, quite frankly, many of my colleagues on the 
Republican side were very frustrated that we couldn't make progress on, 
some of those very commonsense things; for instance, if you are going 
to request asylum, you have to request asylum at a port of entry.

[[Page S6014]]

You can't come across the border between the ports of entry in the open 
desert or swim the river and then say when you get caught: Oh, I want 
asylum. It was obvious you were trying to sneak into the country.
  And we were saying: If you are a true asylum seeker and you believe 
you are requesting asylum, come to a port of entry. We thought that was 
a pretty commonsense thing to say: We will expedite your process to 
asylum if you come to a port, not if we have to chase you in the 
desert. I couldn't get that agreement. My Democratic colleagues would 
not agree to that. That was a great frustration on the Republican side.
  We wanted to be able to require the ``Remain in Mexico'' program. The 
Supreme Court had already spoken and said that had to be done. It was 
not being done. So that if we were flooded with people, they are not 
waiting for 8 or 10 years here; they are actually waiting in another 
country to be able to come through the process. They would still get 
their appointment. My Democratic colleagues would have none of that.
  We also wanted an end to the two big parole programs that the Biden 
administration has created. One of them is called CBP ONE. That is, if 
you come to a port of entry and tell DHS ahead of time ``I'm coming,'' 
then DHS, when you arrive at the port of entry, will quickly give you 
paperwork, will give you a work permit that day, and will release you 
into the country for a decade as you await your hearing.
  It was a fast-track process into the country that was actually 
inviting more people to illegally cross into the country. We now have 
1,500 people a day that are coming through that process. We have no 
idea if they qualify for asylum because they are not being screened for 
asylum.
  We wanted an end to that process because we felt like it is actually 
inviting more illegal immigration rather than trying to deter it. And 
it is not just us saying that. The inspector general for the Department 
of Homeland Security made this statement. They felt that CBP did not 
gather intelligence or conduct sufficient analysis of data generated by 
CBP ONE appointments to protect against fraudulent applications and 
misuse and public safety threats.
  That is not us saying that; that is the inspector general saying 
that. We wanted an end to that program. Through the negotiations that 
were long and hard, I got agreement that that program would end, that 
we would put a stop to that program.
  But there was a second program called the CHNV program. This is 
30,000 people a month that are coming in. These are folks from Cuba, 
Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela--30,000 a month. This was another 
program that was wholly created out of the Biden administration that 
has never existed in any other administration. It was a parole 
authority to say: If you will contact us before you come from one of 
these countries and someone here in the United States will ``sponsor'' 
you or at least say ``I know them,'' then you can get into the country 
and be paroled into the country. This is not even an asylum request. 
This is just you are just released into the country.
  We wanted to have a stop to that program as well because there are 
all kinds of issues with that program. But that one, my Democratic 
colleagues would not agree to and said: No. We will stop the CBP ONE 
parole program. We won't stop the slowdown of Cubans, Haitians, 
Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans coming in, in very high numbers.
  By the way, the deal was supposedly that we would take in 30,000 of 
those folks and Mexico would take in 30,000 of those folks. The problem 
is, we have asked for the numbers that Mexico has taken in; and, so 
far, the State Department won't give us an answer, and DHS won't give 
us an answer. As far as we can tell, the Mexican side has been zero 
while we have been 30,000.

  Now, we felt there was a problem with the way the program was being 
run. And by the way, again, we are not the only ones that think that. 
DHS itself shut down that program for part of this summer because they 
found what they called egregious fraud problems; that is, some sponsors 
sponsoring dozens of people to be able to come in and an overflow of 
individuals not being properly screened. There are major problems with 
the program. Unfortunately, the program has restarted again.
  Now, why do I walk through this? I keep hearing this rewrite of 
history that it was President Trump himself that told all Republicans: 
It is a great deal, but don't do it. Now, there is no doubt President 
Trump made a statement that it is not enough. He wanted everything in 
it, and he said: Don't do it. No question that statement was made, but 
no question that belief was already shared by several folks on my side 
of the aisle saying we wanted an end to all these parole programs. We 
also want to stop applying between ports of entry and, if you are going 
to apply, only at ports of entry.
  And several of my colleagues said the House bill--that was H.R. 2--it 
was that or nothing. They wanted everything or nothing. And suddenly, 
this whole system falls apart.
  I stood here at this exact same spot saying to my colleagues on my 
side of the aisle: We should do as much as we can do. This is as much 
as we can get right now with a Democratic Senate, with a Democratic 
White House. Let's do all we can to be able to stop it.
  Obviously, I didn't win that part of the debate, but I also don't 
want people rewriting history and what actually occurred in the debate 
because there were serious issues that were unresolved in the bill that 
are still out there.
  My frustration is, all of it is still out there. We still have the 
same issue with asylum that this bill would have fixed. We still have 
the same issue between ports of entry. That is still unfixed. And we 
still have not one of those parole programs but both of those parole 
programs happening.
  Interestingly enough, in the last couple of months, the numbers at 
the border have started slowing down. It has been very interesting. I 
don't know if you noticed even during the Presidential debate that 
happened earlier this week, ABC News asked Vice President Harris: The 
number of border crossings for illegal immigration was very high during 
your first 3 years, but they seem to have slowed down the closer we are 
getting to the election. Why?
  She actually didn't answer that question at all. She totally skipped 
it. And ABC News didn't follow up with her, shockingly, to be able to 
do a followup question to say: You didn't answer the initial question. 
You said everything else but why.
  Well, I can give you a couple of things on that. Two things have 
occurred in the past few months: Mexico has had their elections, and we 
are having ours. So suddenly, Mexico is starting to enforce their 
border a little better, and this administration is enforcing the border 
a little better with the authorities they already have.
  Now, when I say ``a little better,'' it has gone from 5,000 people 
illegally crossing a day to about 3,400 people illegally crossing a 
day. That number is still five times what were crossing during the 
Obama administration.
  My request has been the same for President Biden all along: If you 
won't enforce the border the same way President Trump enforced it, at 
least enforce it the same way President Obama enforced it. Under 
President Obama, we had half a million people illegally crossing a 
year. Now, we have 2\1/2\ million people illegally crossing in a year. 
Same law--same exact law, enforced completely differently.
  Why is this an issue? It is not just an issue in our economy. It is 
not just an issue in our schools. It is not just an issue in crime in 
our communities. It is also a national security issue.
  In June, the FBI picked up eight ISIS-affiliated individuals that 
were in our country, that had come across our southern border and had 
asked for asylum. They were from Tajikistan. And they had gotten the 
quick review at the border and had been released, like hundreds of 
thousands of others had that same month. But these eight were 
different. They are ISIS-affiliated. And they scattered around the 
country to Philadelphia, New York, and Los Angeles and began their 
flight. Thankfully, our FBI picked them up. But of the 2\1/2\ million 
people that have crossed just last year, how many did we miss?
  I have been very outspoken on this issue. We moved from the border 
issue being just an issue about how do we manage our own border and 
illegal immigration to a national security issue.

[[Page S6015]]

  Madam President, 3,400 people a day illegally crossing our border is 
still an epic high number. And while the media has looked away because 
now it is no longer 5,000 a day, 3,400 a day is still way too high. Our 
system is still overwhelmed, and we still have tens of thousands of 
people coming in of what this administration calls special-interest 
aliens. That is folks that, by their own definition, are considered a 
national security threat. But there are so many, we don't have the 
opportunity to be able to follow all of them.
  That was those eight that were picked up that were ISIS-affiliated. 
They had been designated as special-interest aliens. Thankfully, we 
were later able to find them and pick them up, but there are thousands 
of them currently in the country. Hopefully, they mean us no harm, but 
currently we have no idea.
  That is something that needs to change. National security should not 
be a partisan issue. I understand it is an election year. This should 
not be a partisan issue. This should be a how-do-we-fix-this issue; 
this should be a how-do-we-resolve-this issue. And if the numbers are 
going down after I was told that the numbers were sky-high because of 
climate change--that was really what I was told by DHS. In fact, the 
White House, in 2021, put out a report on climate change and migration, 
saying that we have dramatically increased numbers because of climate 
change, not because of lack of border enforcement.
  My response to them now is: Well, if the numbers are going down at 
the border, apparently the climate is getting better worldwide because 
the numbers are coming down. It is not an issue of climate migration; 
it is an issue of enforcement at our southern border. If that occurs, 
the numbers go down. If it doesn't, the numbers skyrocket because we 
are the United States of America, and people want to be able to be in 
the greatest country in the world. And I don't blame them.
  We, as Americans, though, also have the right to be able to know we 
live in security and the people that are coming into our country, we 
know who they are, we know where they are from, and we verified any 
kind of criminal background that may or may not be there. That is not 
an unfair request to be able to make.
  One last thing. Currently, the House has passed what they call the 
SAVE Act, and there is an ongoing debate in the House right now how 
this will fit. The SAVE Act is a pretty simple thing. The SAVE Act just 
says if you are not legally present in the United States, you can't 
vote.
  Now, it is already Federal law that no one who is a noncitizen can 
vote in Federal elections. That is already the law. That is the trust 
part though. There is no verify portion of this. One of the basic 
principles of trust is verify. Right now, we are all trust. It is 
against the law, but there is no verification.
  The SAVE Act just says we are not going to just trust that people 
that are not legally present here don't vote; we are going to verify 
that. You can't register to vote until you can show that you are 
actually a citizen of the United States. That shouldn't be a radical 
concept. It should be straightforward.
  I have been one of the folks that have asked the current Attorney 
General: Can you show us any prosecutions or even any attempts to be 
able to prosecute individuals that were not legally present in the 
United States that attempted to vote? Because we know some stories. 
There are some newspaper stories scattered around the country of a few 
of those stories. We just asked a simple question: Can you tell us any 
prosecutions?
  In Oklahoma, we have about 40 people every election across our 
State--about 40 people vote twice. They will do absentee voting and 
then they will show up and vote again. Do you know what they get? They 
get a knock on the door from law enforcement a couple of months later 
saying you violated State law; you voted twice. We actually enforce our 
law that discourages people in the future from then coming and trying 
that again because they know they are being enforced.
  We thought it is a reasonable question to ask the Attorney General: 
How are you enforcing Federal law in this area? It is not that we are 
asking for something new. It is how are we enforcing what is existing. 
So far, the Attorney General, after months of asking the question, has 
given us no answer.
  I look forward to the day that this body can sit down with each other 
and say: Let's solve the national security issues because we all know 
they are there. We all see it. We all go through the same briefings. 
Let's solve those, and let's have an immigration system where we honor 
legal immigration and deter illegal immigration. That is what most 
countries do. But for some reason, our politics have gotten in the way 
of us solving this.
  Let's find a way to be able to solve this in the days ahead. I have 
no delusions that it is going to get solved in the next 2 weeks, but we 
do need to sit down and resolve this in the days ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The Senator from California.

                          ____________________