Vote the clerk ms. Baldwin. The clerk mr. Barrasso. Mr. Bennet. Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Blumenthal. Mr. Booker. The clerk mr. Boozman. Mr. Braun. Mrs. Britt. Mr. Brown. Mr. Budd. Ms. Butler. Ms. Cantwell. Mrs. Capito. The clerk mr. Cardin. Mr. Carper. Mr. Casey. Mr. Cassidy. Ms. Collins. Mr. Coons. Mr. Cornyn. Ms. Cortez masto. Mr. Cotton. Mr. Cramer. Mr. Crapo. Mr. Cruz. The clerk mr. Daines. Ms. Duckworth. Mr. Durbin. Ms. Ernst. Mr. Fetterman. Mrs. Fischer. Mrs. Gillibrand. Mr. Graham. Mr. Grassley. Mr. Hagerty. Ms. Hassan. Mr. Hawley. Mr. Heinrich. Mr. Hickenlooper. Ms. Hirono. The clerk mr. Hoeven. Mrs. Hydesmith. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Kaine. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kennedy. Mr. King. Ms. Klobuchar. Mr. Lankford. Mr. Lee. Mr. Lujan. Ms. Lummis. Mr. Manchin. Mr. Markey. Mr. Marshall. Mr. Mcconnell. Mr. Menendez. Mr. Merkley. Mr. Moran. Mr. Mullin. Ms. Murkowski. Mr. Murphy. Mrs. Murray. Mr. Ossoff. Mr. Padilla. Mr. Paul. Mr. Peters. Mr. Reed. Mr. Ricketts. Mr. Risch. Mr. Romney. Ms. Rosen. Mr. Rounds. Mr. Rubio. Mr. Sanders. Mr. Schatz. Mr. Schmitt. Mr. Schumer. Mr. Scott of florida. Mr. Scott of south carolina. Mrs. Shaheen. Ms. Sinema. Ms. Smith. Ms. Stabenow. Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Tester. Mr. Thune. Mr. Tillis. Mr. Tuberville. Mr. Van hollen. Mr. Vance. Mr. Warner. Mr. Warnock. Ms. Warren. Mr. Welch. Mr. Whitehouse. Mr. Wicker. Mr. Wyden. Mr. Young. The clerk senators voting in the affirmative baldwin, bennet, blumenthal, buicker, cantwell, capito, cardin, carper, collins, cortez masto, crapo, daines, durbin, hine heinrich, kelly, king, klobuchar, lujan, lummis, markey, marshall, mcconnell, merkley, murphy, ossoff, padilla, paul, peters, risch, rosen, rounds, schatz, schumer, smith, stabenow, tillis, van hollen, warner, warnock, warren, welch, wyden, and young. Mr. Coons, aye. Mr. Graham, aye. The clerk senators voting in the negative barrasso, brit, cornyn, cotton, cruz, earns, grassley, johnson, kennedy, lankford, lee, paul, rubio, and thune. The clerk mrs. Murray, aye. Vote the clerk mr. Sullivan, no. Mr. Cassidy, aye. The clerk mr. Tuberville, no. The clerk mr. Wyden, aye. The clerk mr. Romney, aye. The clerk mr. Mullin, aye. Mrs. Fischer, no. The clerk mr. Vance, no. The clerk mr. Scott of south carolina, no. The clerk mr. Reed, aye. The clerk ms. Butler, aye. Mrs. Gillibrand, aye. The clerk ms. Sinema, aye. Mr. Boozman, no. Vote the clerk mr. Hoeven, aye. The clerk mrs. Hydesmith, no. Ms. Hirono, aye. The clerk mr. Cramer, aye. The clerk mr. Scott of florida, no. Mr. Ricketts, no. The clerk mr. Fetterman, aye. The clerk ms. Duckworth, aye. Mr. Manchin, aye. The clerk mr. Budd, no. The clerk mr. Casey, aye. The clerk mr. Braun, no. Vote the clerk mr. Brown, aye. The clerk mrs. Blackburn, no. The clerk mr. Moran, aye. The presiding officer on this vote the yeas are 66. The nays are 26. The nomination is confirmed. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senates action. The clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. The clerk cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 600, angela m. Martinez of arizona to be a United States district judge for the district of arizona signed by 17 senators. 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 angela m. Martinez of arizona to be United States district judge for the district of arizona shall be brought to a close. The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll. Vote the clerk ms. Baldwin. Mr. Barrasso. Mr. Bennet. Mrs. Blackburn. Vote mr. Blumenthal. Mr. Booker. Mr. Boozman. Mr. Braun. Mrs. Britt. Mr. Brown. Mr. Budd. Ms. Butler. Ms. Cantwell. Mrs. Capito. Mr. Cardin. Mr. Carper. Mr. Casey. Mr. Cassidy. Ms. Collins. Mr. Coons. Mr. Cornyn. Ms. Cortez masto. Mr. Cotton. Mr. Cramer. Mr. Crapo. Mr. Cruz. Mr. Daines. Ms. Duckworth. Mr. Durbin. Ms. Ernst. Mr. Fetterman. Mrs. Fischer. Mrs. Gillibrand. Mr. Graham. Mr. Grassley. Mr. Hagerty. Ms. Hassan. Mr. Hawley. Mr. Heinrich. Mr. Hickenlooper. Ms. Hirono. Mr. Hoeven. Mrs. Hydesmith. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Kaine. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kennedy. Mr. King. Ms. Klobuchar. Mr. Lankford. Mr. Lee. Mr. Lujan. Ms. Lummis. Mr. Manchin. Mr. Markey. Mr. Marshall. Mr. Mcconnell. Mr. Menendez. Mr. Merkley. Mr. Moran. Mr. Mullin. Ms. Murkowski. Mr. Murphy. Mrs. Murray. Mr. Ossoff. Mr. Padilla. Mr. Paul. Mr. Peters. Mr. Reed. Mr. Ricketts. Mr. Risch. Mr. Romney. Ms. Rosen. Mr. Rounds. Mr. Rubio. Mr. Sanders. Mr. Schatz. Mr. Schmitt. Mr. Schumer. Mr. Scott of florida. Mr. Scott of south carolina. Mrs. Shaheen. Ms. Sinema. Ms. Smith. Ms. Stabenow. Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Tester. Mr. Thune. Mr. Tillis. Mr. Tuberville. Mr. Van hollen. Mr. Vance. Mr. Warner. Mr. Warnock. Ms. Warren. Mr. Welch. Mr. Whitehouse. Mr. Wicker. Mr. Wyden. Mr. Young. The clerk senators voting in the affirmative bennet, brown, carper, crapo, heinrich, hirono, king, is manchin, moran, murkowski, schatz, sinema, tillis, welch, whitehouse. Senators voting in the negative barrasso, blackburn, lee, ricketts, sullivan, thune. The clerk mr. Kelly, aye. Mr. Ossoff, aye. Mr. Warner, aye. The clerk mr. Scott of south carolina, no. The clerk mr. Paul, no. Mr. Johnson, no. Mr. Mullin, aye. The clerk mr. Casey, aye. The clerk mrs. Hydesmith, no. Mr. Padilla, aye. Mr. Romney, aye. Ms. Stabenow, aye. The clerk ms. Cantwell, aye. The clerk mr. Wicker, aye. The clerk mr. Peters, aye. Ms. Cortez masto, aye. The clerk mr. Van hollen, aye. The clerk mr. Cotton, no. Mr. Rubio, no. Mrs. Gillibrand, aye. Mr. Daines, no. The clerk ms. Butler, aye. Ms. Collins, aye. Mr. Cornyn, no. The clerk ms. Lummis, no. Mrs. Murray, aye. Mr. Graham, aye. Ms. Smith, aye. Mr. Cardin, aye. Ms. Duckworth, aye. The clerk ms. Ernst, no. Mr. Cassidy, aye. The clerk ms. Klobuchar, aye. The clerk mr. Risch, aye. Mr. Grassley, no. Mr. Braun, no. Ms. Baldwin, aye. The clerk mr. Kennedy, nominate mr. Kennedy, no. The clerk mr. Coons, aye. Mr. Blumenthal, aye. The clerk ms. Rosen, aye. Vote the clerk mr. Schumer, aye. Mr. Boost, no. Mrs. Capito, aye. Mr. Kaine, aye. Mr. Hickenlooper, aye. The clerk mr. Scott of florida, no. Mr. Lankford, aye. Mr. Merkley, aye. The clerk mr. Murphy, aye. Mr. Fetterman, aye. The clerk mrs. Fischer, no. The clerk mr. Budd, no. The clerk mr. Sanders, aye. The clerk mr. Tuberville, no. The clerk mr. W the clerk mr. Wyden, aye. Mr. Vance, no. The clerk mr. Young, aye. The clerk mr. Durbin, aye. The clerk mr. Cramer, aye. The clerk mr. Warnock, aye. Mr. Schmitt, no. Vote the clerk ms. Warren, aye. The clerk mr. Mcconnell, aye. Mr. Marshall, aye. The clerk mr. Rounds, no. The clerk mr. Reed, aye. The clerk mr. Cruz, no. The clerk mrs. Britt, no. The clerk mrs. Britt, no. The Settlement Agreement and said that that applied to not only unaccompanied children forcing the release within 20 days, but it also applied to children accompanied planets. One Court Decision that did weaken a president ial authority. The fact of the matter is because of the aca that sparked all of this and President Trump based his border crisis, he used the president s authority that the Supreme Court in 2018 decision talking about the immigration nationalization act said that current law exudes deference in every clause. Entrusting the president s decisions when and whether to suspend entry. For how long and in what conditions. The president with ample power for entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the nationality act. So, obviously, President Trump was able to use existing authority, he close the border in 12 months. Twelve months. Not through any help by Congress Passing the law, by using that authority where the Supreme Court said the law exudes to the executive. Well, when President Biden came into office, he blew the border wide open. How . He did it by using that exact same executive authority. He exuded deference to the president. He used that, he used that authority and he blew up the border we see the catastrophe that has resulted. Now, the problem with this bill is that it codifies most biden open border policy. It sets thresholds. 5000, 4000. I will talk about those in greater detail. Thresholds that do what . It does not really secure the border. It sends those individuals to the ports of entry to have their silent claims adjudicated in a goldberg type of situation. Spent almost 20 billion, this bill. 20 billion. Primarily, again, to accomplish securing the border which is to more efficiently encounter process and disburse Illegal Migrants that do not have the asylum claims. That is what this bill does. It builds more detention facilities. It hires a small number Border Patrol agents. It hires over 4000 asylum officers to adjudicate these claims. They use a new standard. I dont see much distinction there. The officers will be given all kinds of discretion and these adjudications will now be done by asylum officers not by immigration judges. I see nothing in this bill that in any way shape or form forces a higher standard. It is all subjective. Under this administration, the subjectiveness of that i can pretty much guarantee you will continue the catastrophe. It pays for more detention beds. It pays which has never worked. Effectively. 20 billion of money that we do not have. When trump secure the border, he did not have additional funding for that. He did not have additional custom Border Patrol agents. He used his policies. He used his executive authority. Remain in mexico. You cannot come to this country and claim asylum. It was a huge deterrent. Third country agreements. There are other things. Using that executive authority he secured the border. We did not need an immigration bill. We have this goal forget bill that spends 20,000 that we do not have. Rather than spending all of that money to encourage more Illegal Immigrants come to this country, we ought to stop the flow and that we would not have to spend the money. That makes a whole lot more sense. Do what President Trump did it actually stop the flow. That is not what this bill does. I think the worst aspect of this bill, this is why i always talk about it being worse than doing nothing. Not the 5000 average migrants a day, that is what this would look like it we just normalize 5000 or 4000. You are just codifying the open border. The 5000 threshold makes it mandatory that the president supposedly secure the border. I would argue that does not even secure the border. But it is the 4000 discretionary threshold that when average migration reaches 4000 a day, a massive number, now the president has discretion to stop processing asylum claims and supposedly secure the border. The Supreme Court said current law exudes deference. President trump had the authority by Congress Passing a law basically implying the president does not have the authority to stop the asylum claimses. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. Ms. Smith mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that if a motion to proceed to Senate Joint Resolution 58 is made, the motion to proceed be agreed to and that at 6 00 p. M. The joint resolution be considered read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the joint resolution, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. Ms. Smith mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume legislative session. The presiding officer without objection. Ms. Smith mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from minnesota. Ms. Smith mr. President , i rise today to voice my support for the world 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 stabenows framework reflects more than two 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. You know, the farm bill touches nearly every aspect of life, touching the life of 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. So the second thing is that it sets the rules for how farm and Forestry Programs work, including conservation, Risk Management tools like Crop Insurance, animal health, research and education and forestry and timber. And, third, it drives Rural Development by supporting rural broadband, housing and rural energy so that Rural America can be strong and prosperous and carpetive. For many years, the farm bill has bucked the tide of partisanship in congress by finding common ground, providing stability and predictability to farmers and ranchers in Rural Communities and by sustaining more than 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, farming 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 it just doesnt stand. And, 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 thompsons proposal. While chair thompson should be commended for including many proposals with broad bipartisan support, his bill significantly weakens nutrition and conservation programs, and this undermines the grand bargain that is necessary to pass a bipartisan bill. Heres what im talking about when it comes to nutrition programs. So almost 45 million americans live in homes that dont have access to affordable food, regular access to affordable food. And almost all of these households are either working families or seniors or people that are living with disabilities. And this is interesting and especially a rural issue. Households in rural areas are even more affected. Of the ten counties facing Food Insecurity, the top ten counties facing the greatest Food Insecurity in this country, nine are primarily rural areas. So chair stabenows 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 up so that families can afford the food that they need. And, mr. President , i want to just note, its 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 this is not were not talking about a lot of money per person. Now, in contrast, a the House Republican proposal prevents nutrition assistance from keeping pace with food costs. So what does that mean for a family thats relying on snap benefits, for example . The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the House Republican farm bill could result in a 30 billion cut to snap over the next decades. So this is going to hurt people, its not going to help them, and it wont work, and it wont pass with bipartisan support. So simply put, any farm bill proposal that weakens nutrition assistance now or in the future, it cant pass congress. Now, the foundational farm bill Risk ManagementResearch Conservation programs, those foundational programs, are also incredibly important and they should be strengthened, not weakened, in the next farm bill. To that end, chair stabenows farm bill includes many bipartisan provisions that i fought for, along with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It improves updates to krupp as if in morning business and other to Crop Insurance and other usda programs, especially for small and beginning farms and farmers from more diverse backgrounds, black, hmong farmers, recent african immigrants. Across our country and minnesota, the average age of farmers ssess 5860 years old. 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. Thats what chair stabenows bill does. I wiant to note that chair stabenows bill maintains the sugar program. It rungs at zero cost to taxpayers. It makes sure that American Farmers can compete on a fair Playing Field against stabilized foreign pricesubsidized foreign sugar. Senator stabenows farm bill includes updates to the Dairy Margin Coverage Program that we established in the 2018 bill. I expect, mr. President , this is important to the vermont dairy farmers, and it is important to minnesota farmers. It provides them with an additio