A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the Treasury relating to "Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds".

Madam President, the Senate will take a vote shortly on a resolution from Senator Schmitt dealing with infrastructure funding.

The discussion of the resolution has been pretty quiet because, on its face, it looks like it is an issue dealing with a lot of budgetary lingo and ``Washingtonese.'' Obligated funds and expenditure deadlines are what people hear about. But the reality is this proposal is anti- infrastructure. It could put stop-work orders on thousands of infrastructure projects across the country. Some of them have shovels in the ground as we speak.

(Mr. OSSOFF assumed the Chair.)

My concern is, Mr. President, we pass this, and we would be going virtually from a period where folks in Georgia and elsewhere had hard hats to where they are facing layoffs.

Here is the background: In 2021, Congress passed emergency funding for State and local governments. At the time, there was a big concern that their budgets would get clobbered by the pandemic, which had hammered our economy and put millions out of work. But State and local budgets fared better than expected.

So later on, Senators were looking, on a bipartisan basis, for smart ways to rebuild our infrastructure--roads and bridges and highways, water and sewer, and also broadband projects. There was bipartisan agreement that Congress ought to allow that leftover State and local funding to be repurposed for these important infrastructure projects. So both sides of this Chamber--the Republican side, the Democratic side--passed legislation multiple times, even by unanimous consent, that provided what the States and localities wanted, which is more flexibility.

We hear our colleagues on the other side talk a lot about wanting to cut redtape to get the Federal Government

out of the way and empower the States, the laboratories of democracy. Here is a case where my colleagues on the other side got exactly what they wanted: more flexibility for the States to use taxpayer funds on infrastructure.

Have a highway that needs widening--a bridge that has passed its useful life, a water system with lead pipes that need replacing? Congress voted on a bipartisan basis to make that easier. It is a real head-scratcher why Republicans would now want to make this difficult.

Some have accused the Treasury Department of playing around with the expiration of the program. That hasn't happened at all. It is the same program with the same timeline and the same rules that Democrats and Republicans agreed on as recently as a few short months ago.

I mentioned at the outset that this resolution puts a stop-work order on thousands of projects nationwide. The numbers just really stun you when you walk through them.

On the Finance Committee, we asked the Treasury Department what the impact could be in specific States. Here is an example: In the Presiding Officer's State of Georgia, 17 projects, totaling $1.4 billion could be terminated; Michigan, 160 projects; Ohio, 342 projects; Arizona, 50 projects; Montana, 404 projects; and West Virginia, 73 projects.

Nationwide, there could be thousands of projects closed, tens or even hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, higher costs for families and businesses that had to wait far too long for Congress to get serious about infrastructure.

I will just tell my colleagues, as we gear up for a vote, this one is one of the most unusual votes that I have seen recently, a true head- scratcher. Bipartisanship, we all know, is a heavy lift. But the progress we have made on this issue, in my view, is actually a bipartisan highlight of the last several years.

I have talked to my colleagues a lot about how we find some common ground. Here, we have, from day one, Senator Cornyn--my colleague on the Finance Committee--and Senator Padilla working from the outset to add additional flexibility for the pool of funds that would be available. So a Republican U.S. Senator and a Democratic U.S. Senator put together a proposal--now get this, colleagues--that passed by unanimous consent three times.

So if the Senate were to walk back this bipartisan effort--originally led by a Senator from California, a Democrat, and a Senator from Texas, a Republican--the bottom line would be, Mr. President, that, starting almost immediately, those hard hats that I mentioned in States like yours and others could be coming off, and they would be looking at ways to keep a roof over their head and to pay for food for their families and healthcare.

I will close by saying this. I just don't see a good reason for the U.S. Senate to backtrack on solid, bipartisan progress and have this Chamber act in a way that leaves more of our Nation's infrastructure in a state of disrepair.

I urge my colleagues to preserve the bipartisan work that has been done on this issue--that got strong, strong votes three times. Preserve the work that has been done on this issue for infrastructure. Oppose the resolution.

I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

Mr. President, I am going to be very brief, but I want Senators to know that this is about standing up for schools that need to replace lead pipes. That is the kind of effort that Senator Cornyn, Senator Padilla, myself, and others said was essential for this country.

My colleague from my Missouri--I look forward to getting to know him more; he is new to the Senate--sets this up that somehow this is unnecessary and basically just fueling more redtape. Quite the opposite. If colleagues go home this weekend during the recess, they will see people in their States having good paying jobs for a good day's work repairing bridges, dealing with lead pipes. And that is, colleague, why, on three separate occasions, the Senate Democrats and Republicans came together.

My colleague--I don't ever want to be critical of someone's intention--has made it out that this will just be getting rid of some redtape and bureaucracy. I want Senators, who are going to vote in a little bit, to understand that this is not about that. This is about what it is really like in our communities where so many people are still hurting.

What I have in my mirror are priorities like schools needing to replace lead pipes. That is what we had in mind when we started this effort Senator Cornyn on the other side, myself, Senator Padilla. I hope that the Senate won't vote here at 6 o'clock to essentially pull this effort up from the roots and throw it aside, because a lot of people will get hurt. Senators are going to hear about it pretty soon because these are projects that are underway today; they are underway now.

Democrats and Republicans felt they would make a difference for our communities, and we shouldn't tear up that effort in the name of this resolution that tries to suggest that this is mostly about cutting redtape, which is not the case. It is about cutting jobs in our communities, and we are going to lose a lot of opportunities for some smart investments for the future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of my resolution that would overturn a rule from the Department of the Treasury that affects the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund.

Treasury's attempted sleight of hand to keep the COVID spending spigot on is an insult to Congress and those who believe in our Constitution as well as a complete misuse of taxpayer dollars.

As we vote today, we as a body must ask ourselves a couple of simple questions:

First, are we going to allow funds meant for COVID recovery to be spent after the so-called ``emergency'' ended or are we finally able to install fiscal responsibility as our national debt spirals further out of control?

Second, are we willing to defend the article I branch from an overreaching Agency of bureaucrats who want to claim more and more power for themselves?

The spending in this program--which is hardly the point right now, actually, with this extension of the time, but it is worth noting--has been wasteful on many occasions.

When Congress provided $350 billion for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, I don't think one could have imagined that the fund would have been used for golf courses and swimming pools and tennis courts--maybe to some. It also became a slush fund to incentivize illegal immigration, $340 million for cash payments to illegal immigrants in Washington State, $3.6 million in Illinois to help illegal immigrants apply for citizenship, and $2 million in DC to help turn the District of Columbia into a ``proud sanctuary city.''

Regardless of whether you supported the spending or not, this fund had a specific purpose. This fund was designated to aid State governments and local governments with revenue shortfalls tied to the COVID-19 pandemic.

When Congress created this fund, Congress provided a clear restriction. In statute, Congress required that all costs incurred with money from this fund must be incurred by December 31, 2024. That is the statute. That is congressional language.

In short, recipients had over 3 years to obligate this funding or the funding would be returned to the Federal Treasury. Most States and localities understood the requirements.

As of March of 2023--over a year ago--all States had obligated at least 60 percent of their funding while localities had obligated over 54 percent. Yet, lo and behold, while most people in this body were celebrating Thanksgiving with our families, the Treasury Department tried to pull a fast one on the American people. The Treasury Department decided it knew better than this body and better than Congress, and the Department rewrote the law to fit its own needs and special interests.

Even though the statute said all costs must be incurred by the end of this calendar year, the Treasury Department decided that States could still use these COVID recovery dollars way past 2024.

This is infuriating on a bunch of different levels. First, the administration ended the public health emergency for the pandemic on May 11, 2023.

Now, most Americans had moved on well beyond that, but even this administration acknowledged over a year ago that it was over.

It is also crazy because even though this administration said COVID ended about a year ago, bureaucrats at the Treasury Department decided we should just keep spending money anyway--spending billions into 2025 and 2026--to recover from COVID. Just think about that for a second.

But beyond this, beyond there being no rational reason to continue the spending for COVID recovery, this rule does not even keep the spigot on in order to directly benefit our constituents. This is bureaucrats giving a helping hand and a paycheck to--you guessed it-- other bureaucrats.

Earlier this week, Secretary Yellen attempted to assert that if this rule is overturned--and I heard this from my colleague--then infrastructure projects would grind to a halt. That is false. That is not true. This administration, once again, is using fearmongering as a reckless tactic for a radical agenda.

Let's be honest with the American people and look at the text of this rule. Under this new Treasury rule, the funding is limited to administrative and legal costs, such as compliance costs and internal control requirements. This rule ensures that funding does not go to bridges or broadband but to bureaucrats.

And this rule has real cost. This rule, if it continues, will cost taxpayers at least $13 billion, if not more. That boils down to about $1,200 for each and every American family. And around here, as I have learned, $13 billion doesn't seem like a lot of money to people. But we are $34 trillion in debt. We are spending nearly the same amount on interest payments on that debt as we do our national defense.

This fiscal recklessness is unsustainable. The actions like this from the Treasury rule are a prime reason why we are $34 trillion in debt. Our constituents demand that we actually hold the line, that we stop spending beyond our means, especially when the

rules encourage spending that is wasteful.

I ask my colleagues to join me today in supporting this resolution. COVID is over. Our national debt is out of control. Inflation is sky- high. It is time to reinstate fiscal responsibility here in the U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor, Mr. President, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, just to respond briefly, it may not have been his priority list, but it is worth pointing out that, again, some priorities of these dollars--like $340 million cash payments to illegal immigrants--have been spent from this fund. But be that as it may, if the concern from my colleague is that these projects for lead pipe replacement and schools--if they have been obligated, nothing is going to change with that. I want to make that very clear. In fact, those obligations are still extended through 2024, as the statute called for.

What this is all about is one simple fact: Do we think that Treasury can rewrite the law to extend these bureaucratic payments that, by the way, are part of the submissions that these State and locals have made for legal fees, other compliance costs. That is all in these submissions. This is to get overtime for 2 more years to spend approximately $13 billion. And again, that is $1,200 out of the budgets of American families across this country.

So we have an opportunity to restore some fiscal sanity, to stand up for the Article I branch. Whether you agree with that law or not, it said those obligations had to be incurred before the end of 2024. We are not changing that. We are just saying Treasury doesn't get to do an end run around Congress and again have $13 billion more go out the door to lawyers and to bureaucrats.

With that, I yield the floor and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled rollcall vote take place immediately.

Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about a great friend of mine, Margaret Miner.

My friend Margaret Miner died last week. I am really sad about it. Her family and her friends are really sad about it because she was a great friend, she was warm, and she was generous, because she was funny, she was kind, because she made a lot of other people's lives better.

But I am also sad because Margaret was one of a kind. She was a true Renaissance woman. She was a polymath. She was voracious about intaking the world and about giving back to it.

I have never met anybody like her. I will never meet anybody like her again. I will never see a partnership like the one that she had with her late husband Hugh Rawson. Her legacy lives on, but there is just no doubt that the mold was broken in two when they made Margaret Miner.

She was born in New York City in 1938. Her parents--Tony and Francis--were in show business, which kind of makes sense if you knew her but kind of doesn't.

In 1984, she moved from Brooklyn to Roxbury, CT--Roxbury is a smalltown, quintessential New England village in Northwest Connecticut--and there she became a fixture in the community. She began her life's work of fighting to protect the natural beauty of this State that she called home for the next 40 years.

I first met Margaret as soon as I graduated college. So I went to work for a long-shot congressional candidate who happened to be personal friends with Margaret and Hugh.

And Margaret and Hugh were also, at the time, pretty adept local political activists in Litchfield County. There were no two people who worked harder for that long-shot candidate, their friend, than Margaret and Hugh. They raised money. They knocked on doors. They put up lawn signs--whatever their friend needed, whatever their friend's 22-year- old campaign manager needed. She and Hugh were selfless. I saw that up close. I saw what a good friend Margaret could be.

Then, years later, when I was elected to the State legislature, I got to know Margaret as an advocate. She was in those legislative halls in Hartford, CT, nearly every single day, fighting for her cause, the cause of clean water and a healthy environment.

She single-handedly made her organization, Rivers Alliance, which she led for 18 years, a force to be reckoned with in Hartford. Under her leadership, Rivers Alliance became a force in Connecticut politics.

Her team fought for and successfully helped to pass State laws to create a statewide water plan to protect streamflow in water courses, to ban the water contaminant MTBE in gasoline, to protect funding for the Connecticut Council on Environmental Quality, and to restore and protect State funding for the U.S. Geological Survey. That is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what Margaret did, in terms of what Margaret and the people she mentored produced in Hartford. But her work was always about something bigger than herself or even her organization, Rivers Alliance.

She was really dedicated to building a movement around water quality, around water health, around the environment. She helped teach people all across the State how to advocate for themselves, how to advocate for the causes that they mutually cared about.

She was an organizer of people at heart, encouraging countless individuals all around the State and all around the country to join the causes that she cared about. And she was just good at it. There were fewer people who were more inspiring or convincing than Margaret was.

Now, Margaret wasn't a big, boisterous, loud personality, but she was sincere; she was genuine; and she never ever gave up. Her persistence was her calling card.

Her unrelenting advocacy did not go unrecognized or unnoticed. She received countless awards for her work during her lifetime. She received the first Champion of Water Award from the Connecticut Water Policy Council. She received the Clyde O. Fisher Award for environmental achievement from the Connecticut Bar Association.

She was the first recipient of the Dr. Marc J. Taylor Environmental Stewardship Award, the Rockfall Foundation's Tom ODell Distinguished Service Award. In 2016, I nominated her for the EPA's prestigious Lifetime Merit Award.

People knew what she had done in Connecticut, and so, good for Connecticut that we didn't have to wait for Margaret's passing before singling her out for her seminal achievements in the area of environmental protection.

But what made Margaret so compelling, what made Margaret so amazing was that in addition to being a great friend, in addition to leading one of the State's preeminent environmental organizations, she was incredibly accomplished in so many other fields.

The rest of her life, when you say it out loud, in addition to all of that achievement, it kind of almost sounds implausible.

For instance, in her free time, Margaret was a nationally known and celebrated author, not about the environment, but about the history of quotable people. She was the coauthor of five dictionaries of quotations, including the ``Oxford Dictionary of American Quotations'' with her husband Hugh. In her spare time, she wrote five anthologies of quotations--five books.

She helped found an organization called Our Towns for Sar-E-Pol, a humanitarian effort through the not-for-profit Save the Children to help women and children in Sar-E-Pol, Afghanistan. She was an international philanthropist and an author and environmental advocate.

She wrote a Consumer Reports book on allergies. I didn't even know that until I read the story of Margaret's life. She was an active member of the Roxbury Democratic Town Committee, and just before she passed at 86 years old, she was still serving on the local Zoning Board of Appeals.

She was learning Spanish in her eighties, attending two Spanish classes weekly. And as often as she could, she was playing poker, fleecing her friends of their money whenever possible.

Margaret Miner was an original. As her friend, I will remember her wit, her political savvy, her boundless heart, and on a personal note, I will just say I wouldn't be here if not for Margaret--and for Margaret and Hugh.

When I decided to run for Congress 10 years after first meeting Margaret, she was, not surprisingly, one of my first calls. I planned the early stages of my first campaign at Margaret and Hugh's kitchen table in their cute house in Roxbury, CT. That is how important she was to me. And I am one of hundreds in Connecticut who can say Margaret Miner was one of the most important people in my life.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this week marks the 70th anniversary of one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of all time. It is part of our march toward justice.

On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Brown v. Board of Education, unanimously--unanimously--declaring the racist legal doctrine of ``separate but equal'' unconstitutional.

Today, we celebrate this historic anniversary and how far we have come as a country since the dark days of Jim Crow. Thankfully, we have made substantial progress in addressing racial disparities in education. However, significantly, systemic disparities do still exist today. More work needs to be done to promote racial equity and end discrimination inside and outside the classroom.

When the Supreme Court announced its decision in 1954, the demographics of American school-aged children were significantly different than they are today. At that time, the school-aged population, according to The Century Foundation, was roughly 85 percent White, 12 percent Black, and less than 4 percent other races. Contrast that with today. America's school-aged population is much more diverse: 48 percent White, 27 percent Hispanic, 15 percent Black, 6 percent Asian, 1 percent American-Indian, and 4 percent multiracial.

Yet, even with this increase--dramatic increase--in diversity, America's schools too often remain segregated by race. As of the 2018- 2019 school year, one in six public school students attended schools where more than 90 percent of their peers had the same racial background. Illinois has 3 of the country's top 11 most segregated urban school districts. This lack of racial diversity in our schools is caused in part by unfair, exclusionary zoning policies that keep low- income families out of schools in wealthier communities.

Education can play a significant role in helping to close the wealth gap between families, but unfortunately, due to modern-day segregation, many Black and Brown students often cannot access the same high-quality education as their White peers.

If you look at data from U.S. public schools going back to 1967, you will see that the segregation between Black and White students has increased by 64 percent since 1988 in the 100 largest school districts. While school segregation is not at pre-Brown v. Board of Education levels, it is still high and has been rising steadily since the late 1980s, and because where you go to school depends on your ZIP Code, students from poor neighborhoods in segregated cities are often trapped in underperforming schools.

Dismantling segregation has become more difficult now than it would have been 70 or 80 years ago, but we cannot ignore the challenge. Unless we focus on desegregating America and its neighborhoods, Brown's promise of integrated education will remain an unattainable goal.

The Brown decision was supposed to be the first step in a long march towards Americans' equality. It helped set the stage for challenges to other Jim Crow policies, such as barriers to fair housing, equal employment, voting rights, and public accommodations.

Unfortunately, today, the forces of intolerance are working to turn back the clock. Just last year, the Supreme Court struck down decades of precedent by ruling that affirmative action policies at two universities were unconstitutional. The attack on affirmative action threatens not just opportunities in education but also equal access to employment and contracts for minorities. The decision rewinds the clock and recreates barriers to entry for young minority students looking to pursue a degree in higher education and advance beyond college.

Quality education should be a right in our country, not a privilege. As a country, we still struggle to fulfill that promise. Public schools and many other elements of society remain separate and unequal, diminishing opportunities for millions.

Congress must focus on enacting policies and using resources to provide every student--Black, White, Brown--with the tools they need to learn and thrive in America. We must advocate for all students of every race and every place to have these resources to learn without limits.

As we celebrate 70 years since this historic decision, we honor the brave individuals who fought hard to bring it to reality. Those of us here today must honor their determination and sacrifice by continuing their mission for fairness.

On this 70th anniversary, I urge my colleagues to continue working toward equality within our education system and society. It is long overdue for us to repair the broken systems that no longer serve our children, our grandchildren, and our country.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I join my colleagues in expressing my support and admiration for the women and men who put on the blue. Whether it is our southern border or our own backyards, these members of law enforcement are essential to protecting our safety and security. They are the guardians of our neighborhoods, protectors of our families. They take deadly drugs like fentanyl off of our streets.

As we celebrate National Police Week, let's recognize the service of those among us and the jobs they do that require the utmost integrity, skill, and dedication.

We must never forget the sacrifices that the members of law enforcement and their families make on our behalf. They work long hours in challenging conditions and dangerous areas to serve and protect us. Yet, despite the dangers they face, they remain steadfast in their commitment to our communities. They are the ``thin blue line'' that protects us while we sleep.

In recent years, we have seen a disturbing trend of not just disrespect toward law enforcement but violence. It

is not just wrong, it is dangerous. It undermines the rule of law and threatens the safety and security of our communities.

We must send a clear message that violence against the women and men in blue will not be tolerated. We must stand with them and support them in their vital mission in our communities.

On Monday night, I had the opportunity to walk in a vigil, walk the beat, to honor the more than 149 members of law enforcement who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in my home State of Nebraska. Their names are reflected on the Nebraska Law Enforcement Memorial in Grand Island, NE, and they are remembered in the hearts of their fellow citizens today and throughout the year.

We remember Ross Bartlett, who died last month after 30 years of service with the Ceresco Police Department.

We remember Detective Kerrie Orozco, who was murdered in 2015--1 day before she was supposed to go on maternity leave.

We remember Investigator Mario Herrera, who was killed trying to serve an arrest warrant.

We remember all those who paid the ultimate sacrifice to keep us safe. They were mothers and fathers, sons and daughters. They were heroes, and their bravery is eternal.

The women and men in blue are the backbone of our communities. We owe them a debt of gratitude that we can never repay, but we can show our appreciation for them, show our support for them.

I am proud that in Nebraska, while other communities are trying to defund the police, we support the police. In Nebraska, we back the blue.

When I was Governor, we had the largest package of pro-public safety and law enforcement legislation passed in years. We invested $47.7 million in our Grand Island Law Enforcement Training Center to ensure that our law enforcement officers would get the highest level of training. We invested $16.9 million in our State Patrol Crime Lab to make sure we could solve crimes and give the victims of crime the justice they deserve.

Instead of reducing penalties for violent crimes, my home city of Omaha, NE, has used community engagement, like Omaha 360, to be able to reduce homicides. The Omaha Police Department and the Omaha community have reduced homicides in each of the last 3 years. ABC News said that the Omaha Police Department could be a model for the rest the Nation.

In addition, last year, Omaha police had a 100-percent clearance rate on homicides. There were 28 murders and 28 homicide cases cleared. When the national clearance rate is just over 50 percent, a 100-percent rate is truly remarkable.

As usual, America can learn a lot from our proven solutions in Nebraska.

The Federal Government must also back the blue. We need to secure our border and put an end to the scourge of drugs that are killing our young people here in America. We need to pass the Back the Blue Act to increase the penalties for criminals who target law enforcement officers. We need to provide new tools to officers to protect themselves. We need to block anti-cop, soft-on-crime policies that would hinder law enforcement's ability to do their jobs with excellence. I am committed to working with anyone who wants to make this happen.

The women and men in blue have earned our respect and our gratitude-- not just during Police Week but all year round.

Once again, thank you to the members of our law enforcement. Thank you to their families, who sacrifice alongside them. You are heroes, and we are forever in your debt. I am grateful for all that you have done for our communities, and I know, on behalf of all Nebraskans, we support law enforcement.

God bless our law enforcement officers as they keep us safe. God bless the great State of Nebraska. And God bless our Nation.

I yield the floor.