Floor Statements

Madam President, I understand the statement by my friend from Michigan. I have to tell you, though, I wish this was rolled out in an orderly fashion. It has been 6 weeks of chaos and unanswered questions, and the Federal Government is about to fire thousands of Federal employees because they did not bend to their will.

Many Federal employees asked for a medical exemption and were told no. Literally, they brought a letter from their doctor and were told no. Individuals asked for religious accommodation and were told no, they will not get it. It is one thing to say it is offered; it is another thing to say it was actually extended.

I will tell you, from talking to people in my State in the Federal workforce, they are not getting those orderly religious accommodations, those orderly medical exemptions. They are not getting it. They are being told ``No, it is a mandate,'' and then they are being told ``You are about to lose your career. Is it worth it?'' These are individuals literally choosing between their health and their job.

By this January, I don't know how many thousands of Federal employees we are going to have out of our system and how much wisdom we are going to lose out of all these Agencies. But this horrible game of chicken that the President is right now playing with not only Federal employees but with people all over the country is a terrible thing to do to our economy and to individuals who are seeking the best service.

It is amazing to me how many individuals served through the entire pandemic faithfully and took great risk to serve their neighbors who literally the President is about to fire as their thank you. That is wrong. That is wrong.

I stood last week and talked to individuals who work for American Airlines, who are really concerned and frustrated, who love working with American Airlines but are now receiving a mandate coming down on them that they are digging in and saying: I am not going to do it. I have already had COVID. I have recovered. I have natural immunity. Why am I being asked to do this as well?

And they are getting only that the President is mandating it, and: We do Federal work, and so it is going to be required.

It is the same thing happening to packing companies, to manufacturers, to small businesses around the country.

Let me just read you a story. One employee who called our office last week is currently in cancer treatment for the fourth time and is receiving an experimental treatment. She is being told that she will be terminated from her job November 24 if she doesn't get vaccinated, because the President is requiring it on everyone.

That does not sound like an accommodation that is occurring because of medical accommodations.

It is nice to say in DC: Talk to the people in your State what is actually happening on the ground.

All of this push that is happening around healthcare workers all around the country, what does that really look like?

When we talked to an administrator of one of our nursing homes. Most of the individuals in our nursing homes, thankfully, as residents and as staff, have been vaccinated; but some have had COVID, and they are concerned about getting the vaccine. Whether that is rational or not, that is where they are, but they have natural immunity.

This particular nursing home that we talked to, 20 percent of her employees have said that they will not take the vaccine. This particular nursing home in a rural area will close and expose all of those residents and their families to chaos because Biden said: I am losing patience.

It is one thing to say we need to be able to push back on this pandemic. I absolutely agree. It is another thing to irrationally close down nursing homes that are taking care of patients that, by the way, were filled with people--frontline workers--who put their life at risk last year to serve people.

And now to push those people out and fire them this year?

``You are welcome,'' apparently, is what the President should be saying to them.

All I am asking for is reason. All I am asking for is to consider those 44 million Americans who have natural immunity and to accept what we all know scientifically to be true. All I am asking for is real medical exemptions. That is not irrational. All I am asking for is real religious accommodations.

Those are things that should be straightforward, common sense, and doable. But for whatever reason, the train is barreling down the tracks. In the debris field is our Federal workers, individuals who work in private companies, healthcare workers across the board.

I, just this weekend, received an email that was a long email from a very shy physician in one of our major hospitals in Tulsa. She told me flat out: I don't seek personal attention. I don't do media stuff.

In fact, she said: I don't even have social media at all.

But she detailed out her healthcare decisions and what was going on in her own life and said: I do not want to receive this vaccine.

As a physician at a major hospital in Tulsa, she is about to lose her job because President Biden's patience is running thin.

What do her patients do next?

Mr. President, don't play chicken with our families. This is real to them. They do not need to lose their job because they have medical conditions, religious accommodations, or they have natural immunity. They have suffered through COVID once, and now you are going to fire them for that?

Let's have a real dialogue, not a rushed ``My patience is wearing thin.''

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate is currently taking up a nominee to the Bureau of Land Management: Tracy Stone-Manning. There is a lot that I can say about Tracy Stone-Manning, but there are some key features that come out if you are going to deal with the Bureau of Land Management.

You walk into a leadership role where you have thousands of people working under you and around you, and you have care for the forests, and you have care for a lot of things that are running our environment.

This particular leader was involved, when she was in college, in a group that was gathering to be able to spike trees. She has admitted that she is the one who actually wrote the letter to be able to actually lay out what they had done, where they drove a spike into some trees, intentionally designed to be able to threaten loggers who would come through that area; that if they actually put a chain saw to that, there is a decent chance it would break the chain and it would come at the logger or that if they put that log in a sawmill, it would split the bandsaw and throw debris across all the workers who are there. To be clear, tree spiking is an act of ecoterrorism.

Now, this individual will be voted on by this body to lead the Bureau of Land Management. I wish I could say that was the only issue that was there, but as you read through her writings--she wrote multiple different things about dealing with environmental issues, but one of the things that were most painful to me to be able to read was a section that she wrote where she had a picture of a child, and in the picture of the child, it said: ``This is the greatest environmental threat that we face''--children. In her philosophy, the world has too many kids, and the way that we can protect the environment is to have fewer children in the world. I happen to think children are a blessing, not an environmental threat.

But this body is about to vote on putting Tracy Stone-Manning to lead the Bureau of Land Management.

Mr. President, it is one of the most basic questions that we get in almost any setting: What do you do? It is common conversation, back and forth between adults or teenagers or college students alike: What do you do?

It is a philosophical issue, though, that really has to be addressed, and, interestingly enough, it has become a greater divide between Republicans and Democrats of late. It didn't used to be that way.

The simple conversation about ``what do you do'' and encouraging people to be able to be engaged in productive work and what they do seemed to be something that was unified.

Democrats and Republicans alike rallied in the 1990s, as Bill Clinton declared: We are ending welfare as we know it. A 60-year experiment of sending out checks to individuals, saying we are going to help people escape poverty by sending a check to individuals, and if we give them a check, they will rise out of poverty.

Bill Clinton stood before the Nation and said: I campaigned to end that because that experiment didn't work, and he focused in a whole different direction, encouraging, as he spoke often on deadbeat dads, individuals that should pay their child support, need to pay it, and he highlighted how many people weren't doing that because those families were left exposed.

And he talked about the dignity of work, saying: To help people to be able to escape from poverty, we need to incentivize work and stop just sending a check to individuals but instead attach that to work.

The Nation stood and cheered and rallied around a moment to say: Let's help people, but let's help people actually rise.

There is a statement that I heard often, even during that time period: Let's not make welfare a hammock; let's make it a trampoline, that they can get assistance for a moment and be lifted out and to be able to rise to other things.

I thought that was a settled issue, until just last year. I suddenly started hearing President Biden on the campaign trail, and now in office, with my Democratic colleagues in the House already passing something over there in their committees, saying: We want to actually go back to welfare as we knew it. We want to be able to go back to that failed experiment, when we used to just mail checks to people, and so people in government would feel good to say: We took care of childhood poverty.

I have already heard people--even today in this body--say: If we pass this $3\1/2\ trillion proposal, we will cut childhood poverty in half. That was a statement that was made pre-1990s, when government believed if I just mailed a check, suddenly children would rise out of poverty because the numbers are right. But, actually, what we discovered was inflation would rise as checks were mailed out, and families were trapped in permanent levels of poverty because there was a disincentive to actually engage in work.

Now, again, this used to not be a Republican-Democrat thing. This was just a thing that we could look at the data.

Brookings Institute, which is a left-leaning think tank--I think we could all commonly agree with that. The Brookings Institute has, year after year, gone back to be able to look at how people actually escape poverty. How does it happen? What are the features that are there if people--if it is true in their life that they escaped poverty. They have identified three areas; that if these three areas are true, you will escape poverty.

No. 1, graduate high school. People that graduate high school, much lower level. No. 2, have a full-time job; have an income; if you actually are working full time. And, No. 3, if you wait until 21 to be married and then have children after marriage.

If those three things are true, the Brookings Institute said only 2 percent of the people actually are in poverty. Seventy-five percent of those folks in poverty that graduate high school, get a full-time job, have children after marriage--if those three things are true, 75 percent of them rise into the middle class.

This is not rocket science in some ways; it is just human nature. But the bill that is being set in front of us that is $3\1/2\ trillion in entitlements--and just to be able to put in perspective how large that is, if you combined the budgets of all 50 States, the total budget of all 50 States, it is $2 trillion. This new entitlement bill is $3\1/2\ trillion that is being proposed--$3\1/2\ trillion of new entitlements that would go to individuals that removes things like an incentive to work. It says you can get childcare tax credits, even if you are not working; that no matter if you are working or not--and the current limit, by the way, don't forget, is only $2,500 of income in a year. If you will do at least $2,500 worth of income in a year, then you get additional assistance. It is the encouragement to say the State will come alongside of you, but we have got to help you to be able to rise out of this spot--even that is taken away.

There is a marriage penalty that is included in this. Ironically, when I read from the Brookings Institute, and they say, ``Do you want to help people rise out of poverty,'' there is actually a marriage penalty in this where it actually punishes.

So we seem to be punishing work and punishing marriage rather than encouraging people to be able to rise.

Listen, this statement should be common for us: What do you do? It is not just meaningful for individuals and for communities, it is meaningful for children because, in school, children will be asked: What do your parents do? And if it is nothing, it matters to a child. A child has the example that is set in front of them, and it becomes a generational issue. We should encourage each generation to be able to rise and be a part of our society, not to be disconnected but to be engaged with all of our society. That develops community between individuals. It helps our economy to grow. It is what made us the most powerful economy in the entire world because we had what we called the American work ethic.

The American work ethic was a very simple principle that everyone should have the opportunity to be able to do whatever job they choose to be able to do, to be able to have access to the economy.

And if we find any individual or any group that is blocked out of the economy, government steps in and clears the path to make sure there is a level path to be able to be engaged so that everyone has that option to be able to engage in the economy; that everyone has the chance to be able to rise.

That does not get better by telling people: Oh, sit down. You don't have to work. Oh, sit down right over there. We will take care of all your kids all the way through. You don't have to engage.

It sounds nice unless you are living in it. And then it traps people in generational poverty--urban, rural, across the country. It traps people in generational poverty. That doesn't help families. That doesn't help children. That doesn't bless families and help them to be able to rise out of poverty. It keeps them trapped in it.

We have a philosophical difference. How do we help people in poverty? I believe we help people in poverty by clearing out of every opportunity and making straight level paths, setting that in front of individuals and saying: You are an American. Go after the American dream. Apply the American work ethic: try, graduate high school, get a job, get married, stay engaged, bless your children. I believe that is the best way to be able to help our Nation.

Apparently, others believe that it is better just to be able to say: No. You can't do it. Sit down. I will send you a check.

I don't think that casts a vision for their children, and I don't think that helps our Nation.

If you want to make it very straightforward and simple, the census said that we have 21 million children who have a parent that lived outside the household in 2018. Thirty percent of those children were in poverty--three times the rate of children in households where both parents were present.

I could read the Brookings. I can read the census data. But I think we all know it in our gut; that we provide purpose and meaning to people when they can answer the question: What do you do, and it matters to our country and to them as a family.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, so we are approaching a conversation about two big issues here--one is a government shutdown, which I have challenged this body a lot about of late to say: Why are we approaching another government shutdown? And then, on top of that, we can't seem to get any of the 12 appropriations bills done, which there are 12 of them to be done by September 30, but exactly zero of them have actually gone through committee because this body is so consumed with focusing on a $3\1/2\ trillion new entitlement package--$3\1/2\ trillion--a straight partisan package that would create a whirlwind of new entitlements.

To give you a perspective of how big 3\1/2\ trillion is, 3\1/2\ trillion is about the total revenue that the Federal Government brings in in an entire year with all taxes, all fees. All everything is about $3\1/2\ trillion. This is an additional package on top of that, of entitlements of 3\1/2\ trillion new dollars in entitlements.

Now, if I go back to 2017, when we were trying to be able to supercharge the economy and to be able to create more jobs, we passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. And in 2017, when we passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it did exactly what we wanted it to do. It simplified the Tax Code for the vast majority of individual filers, it reduced taxes for just about every single filer, and it increased wages across the country. And it increased revenue coming into the Treasury because it stimulated our economy, which created more jobs, which created more opportunity for more people to make money. When more people make more money, they pay more in taxes, and it comes and covers it. That is what we did.

My Democratic colleagues are now proposing $2.1 trillion in tax increases--tax increases not to cover our deficit, tax increases to create new entitlements and to spend even more money. And the several ways they do it are very, very painful, as I read through their proposal.

One of those is that they are proposing to change the corporate tax piece, which sounds so good to say: We are just going to change the corporate tax piece so only corporations will pay this--the problem being 1.4 million C corporations in the United States, and 84 percent of those corporations that are out there have 20 employees or less.

So they can throw around the big corporations, and everyone thinks it is Conoco and Apple. It is--the vast majority--small businesses designed as C corps.

And how are they going to make them more competitive? They are going to make those C corps more competitive by raising the tax rate for all those corporations to make their tax rate higher than China.

Let me run that past you again. To make us more competitive globally, they are going to make our tax rate higher than China's tax rate, while we are trying to be able to compete with China on the world stage.

Not only that, there is a global minimum tax that is already out there that is a small tax that is out there for every corporation. You know who has that already? The United States does. You know how that was created? It was created in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017 to make sure companies couldn't scam out and couldn't move their money into other places, that they would be here. But if they decided to move to a tax haven, it wouldn't be there. But we set it at a rate to make us competitive.

They want to take that rate and supercharge it and make it one of the top rates in the world.

Now, the statement from Janet Yellen is that she has already talked to all of the other countries about this global tax, and they have said: Yes, we are on board with a global tax. You go first.

Can I tell you something? I remember being a middle-school boy--any male does. I remember being a middle-school boy and hanging out with my friends and all of us were talking about doing something dumb, and it always ended with someone saying: Let's all do it. You go first.

That is what is being proposed right now by Janet Yellen, saying: Let's have the highest tax rate in the world, and other countries will come and match it, and they will be competitive with us. You go first.

I can assure you, that didn't work out well as a middle-school boy; that is not going to work out well for our companies, and it will not work out for our economy.

There is this statement that should be ringing in the back of everyone's head, this simple statement that was made years ago called inversions. Do you remember that old statement when we used to talk about corporate inversions? That was American companies being bought by international companies and moved overseas for their headquarters. That was a common conversation during the Obama administration, but something happened. That term went away because in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act bill, that stopped, and now American companies started buying foreign companies and moving them here, and everything shifted.

This $3.5 trillion monstrosity of new entitlements will flip that again, and we will start hearing the word ``inversions'' because American companies will be moved overseas. It is going to happen when we have a really bad, uncompetitive rate.

Now, people may again say: Well, we are just going to stick it to rich people, but everyone kind of quietly knows that prices will go up, fewer people will get raises in those companies, and it will be less competitive for the United States long term. Everyone knows that.

This $3\1/2\ trillion bill of new entitlements is also funded by giving the IRS billions of additional dollars to do more enforcement and to allow the IRS, as Janet Yellen has asked for over and over again, to be able to track transactions of Americans of $600 or more, either deposited in your account or out of your banking account.

I can assure you, banks all over my State in Oklahoma are already saying: Don't make us turn in the transactions of every one of our people to the IRS. Why does the IRS need this?

Interestingly enough, I have actually asked the Commissioner of the IRS: Can you manage that much information?

And his answer was a very straightforward: No, we can't even manage the information we have now, much less the amount of information that would come at us of transactions of $600 and more.

This is the wrong direction. I could go on and on. In fact, I could give you 3\1/2\ trillion reasons why this is the wrong direction. It is the wrong policy. It is the wrong thing stepping out of an economy that is damaged by COVID. It is the wrong set of policies long term for our economy. It discourages work. And what we are facing right now in workplaces all over the country, from small to large companies, they are all saying the same thing: It is tough to get workers. Well, if you think it is tough to get workers now, wait until there is $3\1/2\ trillion in new entitlements dumped into the economy and see how hard it is to be able to hire workers then. This is the wrong direction for our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week, President Biden announced that he had lost patience with the American people and that he was demanding people get a vaccination.

Now, I have had the vaccine. I am grateful for the vaccine. But it is an entirely different issue for the President of the United States to wag his finger at the American people and to say: I know what you have chosen, but I choose something different, and you are going to follow me.

To literally instruct every employer with 100 employees or more, every Federal contractor, every Federal employee to bend to the will of the President and take this injection, that is a very different thing.

There are over 39 million Americans right now, that we know of, that have already had COVID-19, have survived it, and have natural immunity. The President's demand for a vaccine ignored those almost 40 million Americans that already have natural immunity. His demand was: I know you have natural immunity. I want you to get this vaccine as well.

It ignores cancer survivors who are very, very careful about what goes into their system. It ignores people with religious objections, and there are millions who have religious objections. It ignores individuals who just don't want to do it because they are an American and they don't have to and they do not like to have a Federal Government instructing them what they are going to actually put in their body.

Now, ironically, this was a random selection of companies that have 100 employees and up, so I assume that if you have 99 employees, you are all fine, but if you have 100 employees, it is totally different. There seems to be no accounting for where your employees work. Are your employees all tightly packed, all 100 in one small room, or are your employees all working outside? Do you have 100 employees, but they are in 19 different locations?

There seems to be no accommodation for any of those. It is just the President saying: I have lost patience. You need to go get the vaccine immediately.

So, by Thanksgiving, he is planning on laying this vaccine mandate down on the country. There are multiple problems there, as I have already outlined: the 40 million people who have already survived COVID and don't want to do the vaccine, the individuals in different medical treatments, the individuals with different other religious issues that they have.

But it is also an issue of trying to have a mandate come down from the Federal Government with an Executive order. That is not how our system works. The President of the United States does not have the ability to be able to just demand behavior from the American people. That is not their role.

It has been interesting to me. I have had several people who have reached out to me and said: I found out that the President's order exempts Congress. So how come you get an exemption and I don't?

I quickly responded back to them: Because we are a coequal branch of government, and the President is trying to find everybody under his purview to be able to do this. But the judicial branch and the legislative branch aren't under his purview. Neither should be the American people because the American people do not work for the President of the United States. And companies of 100 people or more, their chief executive, their leadership does not work for the President of the United States.

So now what? There are lawsuits that are pending, but those lawsuits can't move forward until the actual paperwork comes out from the White House. When the actual paperwork comes out in the next couple of weeks, we assume--we have not been told--then they will have what is called standing in the courts, and litigation from across the country will be able to speak into and Federal judges across the country will be able to move on an injunction on this out-of-control mandate and to be able to say they cannot just compel people to be able to go take a shot because the President wants them to get it.

So that will be the first big step. There will be legislative challenges that will come through this body. They are slower, so the Federal courts are the fastest response to this. But there will be multiple other groups that will push back on this, myself included.

Listen, why would we not respect those individuals who have already had COVID-19? According to an article that is in the Wall Street Journal just today, there was a study out of Israel that shows that the immunity from natural immunity is 27 times more effective than the shot--27 times, according to the study that has just recently come out.

To ignore that and to say that is not enough is absurd--or to compel Americans, whether they have had COVID or not, to be able to have a behavior just because the President has ``lost patience'' is not who we are as Americans. It is not constitutional. It will not stand in the courts and should not stand. We should push back on this.

Mr. President, you are very aware because in the committee that we both sit on, we have worked through a process of trying to form an answer to a problem that is coming at us again in 2 weeks.

Two weeks from now, we will hit the end of the fiscal year. At the end of the fiscal year, according to the Budget Act of 1974, we should have already passed 12 appropriations bills out of this body, 12 appropriations bills out of the House, have conferenced those two bills, sent it to the White House for a signature. That is the instructions that should be done by the end of the fiscal year.

The problem with that is the Senate has not passed a single one of those appropriations bills even out of committee--not one. So our government is not funded 2 weeks from now, which means the countdown clock will begin again toward when we are headed to another government shutdown, and the conversation will be: Are we going to have another government shutdown? Are we going to be open? What is going to happen to Federal workers?

Agencies across Washington, DC, and across the country will shortly get instructions for here is what to do in case of a shutdown in your Agency. Here is who, of employees, would be nonessential, what needs to happen to them; essential, what needs to happen to them.

And the chaos will begin in all these Agencies because 2 weeks from now we are headed toward the end of the fiscal year and not a single appropriations bill, of the 12, has been taken up in committee. Not one of them is even scheduled even to be debated on the floor of the Senate. We will not have appropriations bills done 2 weeks from now. It is not going to happen.

So here are the alternatives: There will be what is called a short- term continuing resolution of some length or we will have a shutdown 2 weeks from now.

For the past 3 years, Senator Maggie Hassan and I have proposed a very straightforward solution to end the threat of government shutdowns. Our straightforward proposal to stop government shutdowns is a simple way to be able to solve this issue. If we get to the end of the fiscal year, September 30, midnight, and we have not finished the work that needs to be done on those 12 appropriations bills, automatically a continuing resolution will kick in to prevent a government shutdown. But starting the very next day, October 1, the Senate and the House have mandatory quorum calls every single day until we finish the 12 appropriations bills. We stay here to be able to finish our work. But the work has to be done.

Why is that important? Because Federal Agencies shouldn't constantly be worried about another government shutdown, and the American people should be able to interact with their own government. Now, all of us know the government actually doesn't shut down, but it moves into shutdown mode. Some people have to show up for work; some people do not. But everyone is paid. Some people can get access to a permit when they contact their

Federal Agency; some people cannot. Some people can get licensing; some people cannot. Some people can work through the process with the Corps of Engineers; some people cannot.

And this chaos for the American people and for people who work for the Federal workforce happens all over the country simply because Congress did not get its job done.

Well, the solution is simple. Hold the American people and the Federal workers harmless and push Members of Congress to actually finish the work. This is not a partisan solution. It is just a solution. That is why Republicans and Democrats alike have agreed to the simple solution that Maggie Hassan and I have come to, to be able to end government shutdowns and to say let's continue the conversation that needs to be done, but let's not have yet another shutdown.

This body knows, in the past 40 years, we have had 21 government shutdowns--21. The last one needs to be our last, but I don't know if it will be because 2 weeks from now we are headed to the end of the year, and there is no solution on the table for how to avoid a government shutdown again.

Senator Hassan and I and multiple others again filed our bill today and said: We know how to stop government shutdowns. Keep us at work. Hold the American people harmless, and let's get the task done.

Honestly, I have had people say: That is such a creative solution, and it is such a simple process to get done. I have smiled at them and said: Actually, it is not all that creative. It is the same thing that my mom did when my brother and I were growing up at the house. When my brother and I were in an argument, she would put the two of us in our room and would say: You guys work it out. When you work it out, then you can come out of the room.

It is really no different than that to say Members of Congress should stay at the task until we solve the budget work and we should not leave with the budget work undone and leave the American people experiencing another government shutdown.

Let's not have shutdown 22. Let's end government shutdowns, and let's get our actual budget work done, on time, as is expected by the American people.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3792 and ask it be reported by number.

Mr. President, this amendment would add language to prohibit funding for abortions consistent with the longstanding Hyde amendment, which has been the law of the land since 1976.

The Hyde amendment has enjoyed decades of bipartisan support, including from then-Senator Joe Biden, and it has been signed into law by Democratic and Republican Presidents alike.

The Hyde amendment reflects a decades-long consensus that millions of Americans who are profoundly opposed to abortion should not be forced to pay for the taking of human lives of children or incentivize it with their taxpayer dollars. A 2020 Marist poll found that 60 percent of Americans, including 37 percent of people who identify as pro-choice, oppose the use of their taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions.

Similarly, the Weldon amendment has been in law since 2004. It protects individuals from being forced to participate in abortion if it would violate their conscience.

Millions of Americans of faith and of no faith know that the only difference between a child in the womb and outside the womb is time. Just because they are smaller people doesn't mean they should be any less protected by law.

Mr. President, I would ask for the yeas and nays and remind everyone these amendments have been in place since 1976 and 2004. It doesn't expand anything.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that myself, Senator Sinema, and Senator Carper be allowed to finish our remarks before the vote begins.

Mr. President, I want to set some context of where we are financially at this point.

Everyone knows last year the difficulties of COVID-19 and what happened and the extraordinary measures that were taken to be able to offset the economic damage that was significant. CBO, as of July 21 of this year, estimates the Federal deficit for 2021 will be $3 trillion, much of that based on what was done last year during an emergency time period. It is 13.5 percent GDP. That deficit, in 2021, will be the second largest since World War II, since 1945.

Now, this year, in the year that we are finally working our way out of COVID-19, though still taking it seriously--this year, there is $2 trillion in additional spending in March of this year. There is a $1 trillion infrastructure plan that is in front of us now and a $3.5 trillion tax-and-spend bill that, apparently, we start in 2 days.

Listen, I have been told over and over again throughout the course of this debate that the infrastructure package would be paid for, and then, later, I was told, well, mostly paid for, and then CBO came out a couple of days ago and said a quarter trillion dollars of it is not paid for--a quarter trillion dollars according to CBO's estimates.

To make matters worse, part of the rest of it that CBO does estimate is still areas where I would look at and go: That is pretty shaky estimation--for instance, the unused unemployment benefits from earlier this year. That is an area that I look at and I think, OK, if you are taking unemployment benefits that were borrowed with debt money, then not spending them, and then, later, going back and grabbing them and saying now we are spending them, and they are ``paid for,'' that would be the equivalent of me taking out a $20,000 car loan but, yet, buying only a $15,000 car--so using the extra $5,000 to buy cat food and donuts after that and say it was paid for. It is not paid for. The extra $5,000 would go to debt reduction. In this case, it is $53 billion, not $5,000. That area is total debt spending as well. Though CBO may score it, it is really not there.

One of my favorite areas of scoring in this I find fascinating in the course of this conversation. This bill mandates the sale of over 87 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Almost the identical amount is assumed to be collected from the sale of 87 million barrels of oil to be able to pay for the electric car charging stations. So, literally, this bill sells oil to then pay for the electric car charging stations. This bill also delays to get a score for this--it delays a Medicare Part D regulation that had already been delayed already.

My concern is this: We are not paying attention to the most basic element. This is a quarter trillion dollars unpaid for, according to CBO, and many other areas are pretty shaky pay-fors in this.

My simple suggestion is this: Let's do infrastructure, but let's do the infrastructure we can afford. If we can't afford an extra quarter trillion of this

trillion-dollar bill, then let's back it up to $750 billion. That should be pretty straightforward. If we can't pay for that extra amount, we shouldn't do that extra amount.

Point of Order

So, saying that, Mr. President, in the pending measure, Senate amendment No. 2137 to H.R. 3684 contains a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget that was not reported or discharged from the Committee on the Budget. Therefore, I raise a point of order against division J, title IX, section 905 of the amendment, pursuant to section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I do object.

Reserving the right to object.

I would say this is a complicated issue to walk through the issues of immigration, and there are a lot of questions that hang out there. Secretary Mayorkas was in front of our committee on May 13 to be able to walk through the issues we are facing.

Just as a quick review, we had a record number of people illegally cross the border in March. That was beaten in April. That was beaten in May. That was beaten in June. That was beaten in July.

In July, we had 210,000 people illegally cross our border, that we know of.

The DHS, in a recent court filing--actually filed in a court filing where they made this statement:

Based on current trends, the Department expects that total

encounters this fiscal year are likely to be the highest ever

recorded. . . . The Department also expects that these

numbers will climb even higher if the CDC Order [Title 42] is

enjoined.

There is a real issue that is going on. So when Ale Mayorkas was in front of our committee, our committee had direct jurisdiction for oversight in what is happening in Homeland Security. There have been a lot of changes that have been done this year in how we are enforcing or not enforcing the border.

We have record numbers of individuals crossing the border. The border wall and that whole infrastructure, as well as the technology on the southern border, all the construction has stopped on that. The best we can tell, we have spent $2 billion this year not building the wall.

Currently, it is not getting better. It continues to be able to get worse. We have 10,000 migrants in the Rio Grande Valley currently being held right now. That is 783 percent overcapacity in the Rio Grande Valley right now.

And on the Interior enforcement side with ICE--we have 6,000 ICE agents--and the last number that we saw last month, they did 3,000 deportations among 6,000 ICE agents in a month. The standard for them to actually interdict, detain, or deport an individual has now reached such a high standard that they have to contact regional leadership and ask permission by name to be able to interdict someone.

That has dramatically slowed down what is happening in Interior enforcement, what is happening at our border area.

And as we continue to be able to watch the number of individuals cross our border that are COVID positive, we have this odd situation where the Nation and the President are talking to companies and telling companies, ``you need to mandate vaccines and you need to mandate masks,'' when at the whole time we are literally bringing people from all over the world across our southern border and releasing them into the United States.

We have legitimate questions that need to be answered. May 13, when Ale Mayorkas was in front of our Committee, there were multiple questions that I had. It was a very cordial interchange and very frank going through the issues. I asked him very specific questions for specific numbers.

He said: I will follow up with that.

We wrote him a list of specific questions and asked for specific answers for that. To their credit, 2 months later--2 months later--we got a list of answers to the questions that I had asked. That was 24 hours ago.

The very specific answer on the issues--I asked about the volunteer force in DHS. The humanitarian exceptions to Title 42, including the policy documents, they were very commendable on how they actually answered those.

To DHS, I would ask specific questions on how they are handling sex offenders, because ICE agents have told me over and over again sex offenders are not being interdicted in the numbers they were in the past. They gave us very specific answers on that.

But the problem was, half of the questions they gave us answers to and half they did not. For instance, we asked about the study that they started January 20th on the border wall. That study was supposed to be 60 days. It has now been more than 200 days. We just asked for the status of that study and, if we could see any of it, what were the findings.

Instead, I was sent a press release that they had put out. That is not what I need. In fact, that press release was copied in multiple places in the document to say ``this is responsive.'' That is not responsive.

There is a new process that has been put in place by this DHS called notice to report, where literally there is a large number of people crossing the border at once. They are taking those individuals out, doing biometrics, background checks and releasing them into the country with the statement of: Turn yourself in at an ICE office somewhere in the country.

No administration has ever done that. As far as we can tell, 55,000 people this year have been released into the country under a notice to report. That is a new process that is undefined. The questions we asked about that were completely unresponsive.

The Supreme Court made a decision on what is called a notice to appear just this year that should change the process from how DHS handles notice to appear. We asked very specific questions on how DHS is handling this issue based on the Supreme Court decision that was made a few months ago. They were completely unresponsive on that.

We asked about cost analysis for the border construction, what is happening on eminent domain on those issues and areas where they are choosing not to do eminent domain, and they were completely unresponsive to that.

So literally half our questions they answered completely, and half our questions they sent us fluff.

I am the only one who is holding this up--I am very aware--but it is also my committee of jurisdiction that specifically has border management. I am the one who is supposed to ask these questions, and I am asking these questions, and they are not unreasonable questions.

We are just asking to be able to get an answer to the questions so we can figure out what is the process and what is happening.

As recently as today, I learned that ICE is currently looking at a facility in western Oklahoma to do what they are calling a surge overflow temporary facility. That surge overflow temporary facility they are looking to open is in western Oklahoma, to move people from the border, process them in western Oklahoma, and then release them from western Oklahoma.

It is not an unfair question for me to ask: What is this facility? What is its purpose? And will individuals who are not legally present in the country be released in western Oklahoma?

This is the same question that has been asked by mayors and leaders in Arizona, who have a facility like this in Arizona, where processing was done there and then they were released from there. And mayors and individuals there have asked the question: Why are individuals who are not legally present in the country being brought from the border to my town, and then released in my town?

It is not unfair for me to be able to ask that as well. I have already had that conversation with the Secretary of DHS. I do not have an answer.

So, yes, I object because we need to get some straightforward answers to some very straightforward, very fair questions.

I object.

I object.

Madam President, I have an amendment that we are calling up. It is a very straightforward amendment.

This deals simply with how we handle E-Verify. The E-Verify system is very simple and straightforward. It has been used all over the country. It is a nonpartisan issue that we have used for decades now.

It verifies whether the people that we are actually hiring, and all this purchasing that we are doing, this massive billions of dollars will actually be--the simple, straightforward piece of it is, we are putting billions of dollars into our economy right now. We are doing a lot of infrastructure with this bill.

The promise should be that we are not just buying American, but we are actually hiring Americans as well. This is a bipartisan issue, quite frankly.

President Biden, just today, released a statement that this is a once-in-a-generation investment in our infrastructure and will create good-paying union jobs, repairing our roads and bridges, replacing lead pipes, building energy transmission lines.

It invests in clean energy, manufacturing, and zero-emission vehicles, ensuring that the jobs in the clean energy industry are good- paying, quality American jobs. That is a great promise to be able to make, and it is a great statement to make.

What this amendment does is to make sure it actually is American jobs. We know there is a tremendous pull factor with the American good- paying jobs that are out there. This E-Verify requirement puts in place, both for the contractors and subcontractors, they will actually be American citizens.

So, with that, I ask support for this bill.

Madam President, are there any of my 2 minutes left?

Madam President, this is not just a mandate; this is just a statement, if we are going to put American tax dollars in place, that we are actually hiring Americans to do it.

If we are going to build America, let's also hire Americans in the process. That shouldn't be inconsistent with our basic values.

Vote on Amendment No. 2233

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, there are a lot of issues we are working through right now in the Senate.

Obviously, infrastructure is in conversation, and what is going to happen with some spending dealing with National Guard, Capitol Police.

We are working a lot on issues, like Afghan translators--trying to get those folks who walked alongside our soldiers for 20 years and risked their lives out of harm's way before the Taliban slaughters them.

We are engaged in a lot of issues. There are a lot of things happening behind the scenes. I thought it might be helpful to be able to give a couple of things I think we need to consider.

One is what is happening in the State Department right now. State Department engagement on the issues of passports is a major issue. It is a frustration for a lot of Americans. And I would tell you, a lot of Oklahomans that we deal with on a day-to-day basis on our team are very frustrated with trying to get their passport renewed. They didn't travel last year, obviously, with COVID, but now they want to be able to do some traveling in places where they can.

Good luck with that, as we have found. Right now, the backlog at the State Department is about 18 weeks. Today is the 29th of July. That means if you turn in your application for your passport today, you may get your passport December 2. Merry Christmas. If you plan on traveling Thanksgiving, you need to pay the extra fee to do an expedited delivery though we are at the end of July right now.

The problem?

The State Department still hasn't brought all of their staff back. They are not engaging. The rest of the country is open and operating, and the State Department is still studying how they are going to come back in, and millions of Americans are just waiting for their passport

I have spoken to leadership in the administration about this exact issue. In fact, I talked to some leadership who literally said to me: Oh, I wasn't aware there was a problem.

Listen, there is a problem, and it is not just in the State Department. It is in multiple other agencies. As America opens back up, trying to be able to manage all the issues with COVID, they are very aware of masks and vaccines and spacing.

But companies have figured out how to do this. For some reason, multiple agencies have not and it is causing real problems. It is not just problems in our economy with permitting and other things, some of the policies that have been put in place are causing real problems across our economy for just individuals.

We have an unemployment rate right now in June at 5.9 percent. We don't know what it will be for July, but it is getting better and better all the time. In Oklahoma, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. We have a lot of people employed because we turned off the extra unemployment benefits at the end of June and people came back to work. That is a good thing for them, for their families, for their kids, and for our economy. As we continue to be able to reengage, that is helpful.

But what we are seeing right now is inflation, consumer price increases like we have not seen in more than a decade. The Consumer Price Index increased by 5.4 percent. That is the most in 13 years.

We are watching the rapid rise in prices that Americans feel. It is a direct result of this $2 trillion bill that was done in March, where it paid people not to work, sent checks to individuals, and did lots of other benefits.

Many people, even economists from the Obama administration, said: Don't do this. It will cause inflation.

What have we seen?

In just the last 5 months: milk prices up, bread prices up, bacon prices up, price of gasoline up, price of wood up, price of building materials up, price of rental cars up, prices of used cars up, shortages in different supply chains--things we all identified in February and March and said we need to be attentive to.

If you dump $2 trillion into the economy, what does that do?

In the middle of this dialogue about inflation rising right now and everyone in America is seeing the rise in prices, there is a conversation about trillions of dollars more of spending--more of spending.

What effect do you think that will have? We have already seen the effect of what happened in March. What effect do you think it will have to add another, as is being forecast, $3.5 trillion more spending?

Sometimes we can't wrap our head around the issues of millions and billions and trillions because it all seems like numbers. There is a big difference between millions and billions and trillions. The best way I can describe this is, if you have a million seconds rather than a million dollars, a million seconds is about 11\1/2\ weeks. That is a lot. But a billion seconds is 31\1/2\ years. That is a big difference. Brace yourself because a billion seconds is 31\1/2\ years, but a trillion seconds is 31,688 years.

These are big numbers that are being thrown around and it is hard to wrap our head around how much spending is really going on, but the concept of throwing out $3.5 trillion is mind-boggling.

Let me give you one more. A trillion miles--if I were to say: How far is a trillion miles? A trillion miles is if you left Washington, DC, today and flew to the planet Pluto 334 times. From DC to our furthest planet 334 times, that is 1 trillion miles.

This is a lot of money that is being thrown around and has real consequences, knowing the debt and the borrowing and the tax changes, but how much things actually cost.

I am continuing to challenge my colleagues when they discuss all these big numbers and say: Let's throw all this money out there; it will have no consequence.

I will tell you, the people in Oklahoma feel what is going on. They may not know, but they feel it in the prices every day, what is going on in supply chains, and they are very aware. And the No. 1 question that I get asked when I am out and about in places in Oklahoma is: Where is all this money coming from?

It is a fair question.

There is this back-channel conversation right now happening on immigration as well. Right now, the news is focused on 10 million other things, and I literally have people in my State saying: Things must be going better at the border now because I don't hear about it much anymore.

I will smile at them and I say: I happen to be on that committee and be very engaged in the issues of border management and border security. Things are not getting better; they are getting worse.

March was the highest number of illegal crossings in 20 years. It was beaten in April; it was beaten in May; it was beaten in June. Current trend, that will be beaten in July. Just last week--just in 1 week, last week, the Rio Grande crossing--just that one sector in 1 week had 20,000 interdictions--in 1 week. At one time, they had 15,000 people who they were detaining.

So what is happening with that?

I keep hearing from the administration that we are going to take on the root causes. The root causes is a simple way to say we will deal with this later. Because if you want to talk about root causes, it is a statement saying that, basically, the problems are in Central America; we can't stop it.

Well, that is a nice note, except for here is a list of the countries that have crossed our border illegally just this year. It is over 100-- over 100 countries where individuals have illegally crossed the border.

So what about Brazil? What about Chile? What about Colombia? What about Guinea? What about Indonesia? What about Mauritania? Are we going to go after the root causes there? What about the Philippines, Indonesia, Romania, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates?

This is just a few of the people who have illegally crossed this year in big numbers.

Listen, this whole conversation about root causes is a distraction. We do need to be engaged in the Western Hemisphere. We do need to deal with our drug addiction in this country that causes the flow of drugs to be able to move through South America, Central America, Mexico into the United States. We do need to be aggressive in how we are handling cartels. But to somehow believe that if we poured enough money into the Northern Triangle that suddenly this would all end is false.

We are the greatest country in the world. The root cause of immigration into this country is the great power of the United States, both for freedom and for our economy. People from all over the world want to come here.

We have a million people a year who legally come to the United States--legally, a million--and folks who don't want to wait in line, who pay a cartel and move through Mexico to be able to get here literally from all over the world. If we do not enforce our borders, these numbers will continue to rise as they have every single month in this administration. Every month, the numbers get bigger.

We have got to get on top of this. I wish I could say the administration is taking it seriously. I wish I could say they have a plan. I wish I could say they have released out their studies that they said they were going to do. But they have not released out their studies. They have not released out their plans, and I continue to ask week, after week, after week.

The first hint that I got of what they planned to do came out in their budget. In their budget, they reduced funding for ICE, and they reduced the number of bed spaces for ICE. I was shocked. The numbers continue to skyrocket, and in their first release of what they plan to do on it, they asked for a 1,500-bed space reduction in ICE capacity for detention.

Now, honestly, when I got it, I thought: I can't believe they are putting this in print, but I already knew that it was going on. Why did I already know that it was going on? Because, as I have tracked the numbers all the time, I have watched the number of deportations and ICE detentions dramatically decrease. While some people are focused on the border, they lose track of the fact that not only is this administration not enforcing our southern border, they are not enforcing the interior of the country.

We have 6,000 ICE agents in the United States, 6,000 professional law enforcement-career folks who are in the country, arresting individuals who are illegally present in the country, with the first priority being criminal illegal aliens. That is their first priority, the safety and security of the United States. Of the 6,000 agents in the United States, in May, they did 3,000 total arrests--3,000 among 6,000 agents in a month. That is a record low because the administration changed the rules for ICE agents on who they could interdict.

The first big rule change they made is that ICE agents cannot arrest someone who is not legally present unless they get permission from regional leadership by name to arrest that individual. This means, if they go into a place to arrest someone and they encounter one person they received permission to actually arrest but also find three other criminal aliens there, they cannot detain or arrest them. They have to leave them and request by name later to go back and get them. And guess what. They are not there. Shocking. And it is not all criminal aliens. There are only certain criminal aliens they are now allowed to actually detain. That is a big shift from every previous--every previous-- administration.

Let me give an example that I actually gave to Secretary Mayorkas and asked specifically about some recent frustrating moments from our ICE agents.

Just a few days ago, ICE reached out on a previously deported alien by name. This person had been convicted of a sex assault of a minor under age 14. The alien was at large, and they asked permission to be able to go after this alien and to be able to do a street arrest. Remember, they had been deported before. They knew they were in the area. There were previous sex offender convictions. They were denied the ability to go after that person. They were told, no, they don't meet the standard.

Case No. 2. Another person who was previously deported had a previous conviction for indecency with a child, sexual contact. They were a registered sex offender. They believed they were in the area. They were asked if they could pursue an arrest. Regional leadership told them no, they could not.

Case No. 3--this just happened last week--is of a previously deported alien, twice. So this means they were for the third time in our country illegally. There were previous convictions for alien smuggling--that is, trafficking of people--theft, and illegal entry. They knew they were in the area. They asked if they could do the arrest. Regional leadership told them no.

I could go on and on.

ICE has a different set of rules now from what they had in the past. It is not just criminal aliens anymore; it is that they have to be really high criminal aliens. I could give you lists of people who have multiple DUI offenses, and ICE asked if they could detain them, and they were told no.

Listen, we have all said in this room that we should engage with criminal aliens and that criminal aliens should be deported. I don't know of a person in this room who hasn't said it. We stopped in May deporting criminal aliens. Are we going to do nothing about that?

If you don't believe me, call Secretary Mayorkas. He will send you a copy--that I have as well--of the interim guidance that was put out in May for ICE agents, limiting who they could deport and the process for deportation. I have asked him specifically: If someone goes to pick up a criminal alien and there are other aliens who are there, can they be picked up? The answer has been no.

We have a problem not just on our southern border but what is happening in our country and the issue of enforcement, and we would be wise if we would pay attention to this.

I am fully aware that there are many individuals in this body who do not like the southern border wall. That has been a topic of great debate in this room for several years. But is this body aware that in January of this year, when President Biden ``paused'' the border wall construction and said: I am going to spend 60 days studying it, that 60-day study is still not complete 200 days into the Presidency? He has still not completed the 60-day study.

On top of that, the pause of that construction, during that time period, we are still paying contractors to not do construction. So far this year, we have paid contractors $2 billion--billion with a ``b''-- not to construct the wall. Now, you may think it is a waste to construct the wall. I do not. But please tell me you at least believe it is a waste to not construct a wall and still pay contractors--to not construct a wall.

We are currently paying contractors $3 million a day to watch the materials that had been delivered by January 20 that were sitting on the ground--for steel, for fiber, for cameras, for lighting, for roads. We are paying $3 million a day to have them watch the materials on the ground to make sure they are not stolen--$3 million a day. That is a waste.

As people cross our border in record numbers, a new policy has been instituted on our southern border, called a notice to report. This, again, has never been done by any administration. A notice to report is when the line gets too long on the southern border, with people crossing the border, when they are trying to check everyone in--if the line gets too long, Border Patrol is instructed to grab the folks in the back of the line and give them a notice to report. That is a card telling them where ICE Agency offices are around the country, and they can just go ahead and go and turn themselves in at whatever ICE Agency they want to turn themselves in to anywhere in the country. So far, 50,000 people this year have been given one of those cards at

our southern border and told ``turn yourself in wherever you go in the country''--50,000.

My shock, as I am trying to track the number, is that 13 percent have actually done it. I was surprised the number was that high. But that means 87 percent of the people who we have handed a card to and said ``turn yourself in wherever you go in the country'' have not. Eighty- seven percent--we have no idea where they are of the 50,000 people who were released into the country because the line was too long at that moment

Listen, we can disagree about a lot of things on immigration, but handing people a card and saying to just travel anywhere you want to go in the country and turn yourself in when you get there--can we at least agree that is a bad idea? Can we at least agree that paying contractors $2 billion not to construct the wall is a bad idea? Can we at least agree that criminal aliens who had been previously convicted and are being picked up for another charge should at least be deported in the process? Can we at least agree, if you want to deal with the ``root causes'' in the Northern Triangle in Central America, that it does not deter the people from over 100 countries who have crossed our southern border this year illegally? There is a bigger problem. Can we at least agree that we should address this?

We have a great deal of work to be done. I would encourage all of us to get the facts, to get the details of what is really happening, and to understand that when over a million people have illegally crossed the border just this year, that we know of, that is a problem. It is a problem that hasn't been there in the past anywhere close to this kind of number, and we should address it in this body.

I have written letters. I have made phone calls. I have done reports. We have done research. I have sat down with Secretary Mayorkas. I have held nominees for DHS. I have done everything I can do to bring this issue to the forefront. Although others seem to ignore it, this is an issue that we should not ignore. National security is not something we should be flippant about, and not everyone crossing that border is just coming for a job. We should engage.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a few weeks ago, President Biden nominated Tracy Stone-Manning to be the leader of the Bureau of Land Management. Many people in my State don't know much about the Bureau of Land Management. We don't have a lot of areas actually managed in our State by BLM. It has more than 10,000 employees. It manages roughly an eighth of the Nation's land, including 65 million acres of our forests. The land holds 30 percent of our minerals. Whoever leads this entity leads the issue of how we are managing our forests, how we are handling our minerals, how we are handling our energy development, livestock grazing, recreation, and, yes, timber harvesting.

The individual President Biden nominated we now know was an Earth First! ecoterrorist. She actually typed out, as she has admitted in the past, a threatening letter that was sent out to leaders who were doing forestry in Idaho, saying in her letter that she typed out--and she has admitted that she typed out the threatening letter--that ``we,'' as she put it, drove 500 pounds of spikes into the trees in the Idaho forest and then threatened them, to say: If you harvest those trees, it will not be good for you.

The challenge that we have here is that we have an individual who has admitted that she actually was a part of a group to do tree spiking. Now, what we don't know is if she actually drove a spike. We have no idea. But we do know that she turned evidence on the other people who did and admitted as a part of her plea bargain that she is the one who actually did the letter from a rented typewriter to be able to make sure she couldn't be traced and even in the letter said: If you find me, it would be ``your worst nightmare.''

So what do we do about this? Typically, when you are going to deal with the person who handles forestry for the United States and the Bureau of Land Management and you find out this person has been involved in tree spiking, which actually is designed to injure or kill people who are logging or people who are actually harvesting the lumber in the sawmills and actually processing that lumber, it would cause a pause.

I cannot imagine what it is going to be if she is actually confirmed in this position, and the individuals who come to her to get a permit to be able to do any kind of forestry work, because they would have to actually come to her office, what they would think when they actually walked through the door, because the Bureau of Land Management notices timber sales and signs off on timber sales for the country. The Bureau of Land Management is the one that makes forest product sale plans. The Bureau of Land Management is the one that develops, maintains, and revises the plans for all public management, including identifying areas for timber sales. In fact, the Bureau of Land Management is also the group who sends in the firefighters to the wildfires to be able to put out the fires, which could be including some of these same trees in the days ahead that apparently still have the spikes in them from decades ago. Understanding this is not just a loose issue. Individuals from the Biden administration just recently have talked about how timber harvesters and haulers are critical to forest management across the country. We need these individuals to help with our forest management. We have wildfires in the areas that individuals in the Biden administration have testified because we are actually not maintaining our forest management enough. We are not doing enough harvesting and thinning in those areas, and so it is actually a problem.

In fact, Christopher French, the Deputy Chief of the National Forest System, recently testified the Forest Service research indicates we need to dramatically increase the extent of impact of fuels treatment, such as thinning, harvesting, planting, and prescribed burning across all landscapes.

But yet the leader for the Bureau of Land Management who has been recommended is an individual who has been outspoken in opposition, so much so that she has been active in actually promoting spiking trees.

And it is not just spiking trees. It has also been her environmental issues about grazing land--understanding the Bureau of Land Management is responsible for millions of acres of grazing pastureland across the West. Because the Federal Government owns so much land across the West, many ranchers actually then lease out some of that land for grazing. She has been outspoken as an opponent against this. That is not going to help our ranchers across the West.

And what was most stark to me was this presentation that she had years ago, where she designed several of what she considered to be environmental-focused advertisements, this being one of them where she has a picture of a young girl, and the heading is: ``Can you find the environmental hazard in this photo?''

And then she lists out at the bottom of it: ``That's right. It's the cute baby that's the environmental hazard.''

With this statement below that, she wrote: ``We breed more than any other industrialized nation.''

Listen, I understand every President has the right to pick their team, but when the leader of the Bureau of Land Management considers this little girl to be an environmental hazard, have we not crossed a threshold of saying our problem with our environment is that we have too many little girls?

Honestly, is anyone else disturbed by this as a possibility to lead the Bureau of Land Management, to make a decision about how we are going to manage our forests, how we are going to handle our grazing land, and what is going to be the general attitude about permitting and people?

Because, apparently, from what she wrote, one of the biggest environmental hazards we have as a country is we breed too much.

I don't think that little girl is a hazard. I think it is a little girl. And I will absolutely oppose Tracy Stone-Manning to lead the Bureau of Land Management. And I would ask my colleagues, even one of my colleagues on the other side, to say: Do you not see a problem with this nominee?

If so, let's find another person. Surely there is another Democrat out there who doesn't have this set of views, who can lead our forestry, our grazing area, and our mineral rights. Surely there is one more Democrat who is out there somewhere who does not share these views, because I don't think that little girl is a hazard. I think she is a blessing.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I often come to this floor to be able to speak about news of the day, disagreements that we have, ways that we can solve a problem we have as a nation. Today, I come to tell a story.

In 1774, an Englishman met Benjamin Franklin. They spent a lot of time together in conversations, and Franklin convinced this young sailor and writer and young friend to move to America, to move to his hometown, to Philadelphia. A few months later, 1774, he did.

Franklin saw something in this young man that no one else saw. That Englishman who loved freedom and who saw the glaring injustice of the British Crown, 2 years later, on January 10, 1776, wrote a short pamphlet that changed the course of history.

The man's name was Thomas Paine, and the short work that he wrote was called ``Common Sense.'' It was the first publication that declared we should call for independence for these 13 Colonies. It didn't include his name because if it included his name, it would have been a certain death warrant from the King, but it made the case for freedom for each person, for an elected government rather than a monarchy, and the case for religious liberty. In short, he made the case for the United States of America.

He wrote these words:

The cause of America is, in great measure, the cause of all

mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are

not local, but universal, and through which the principles of

all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of

which, their affections are interesting.

He wrote about the rule of law and how that would be different than living under a monarchy, and he challenged the young colonists to be able to pursue more.

He wrote:

But where says some is the king of America? I'll tell you

Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind

like the Royal Brute of Great Britain. Yet that we may not

appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be

solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be

brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let

a crown be placed thereon, by which

the world may know, that so far we may approve of monarchy,

that in America the law is king. For as in absolute

governments the king is law, so in free countries the law

ought to be king.

He wrote:

As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of

[every] government, to protect all conscientious professors

thereof, and I know of no other business which government

hath to do therewith.

Suspicion is the companion of mean souls. . . .

He wrote and he said:

It affords us a larger field for our Christian kindness.

Were we all one way of thinking, our religious dispositions

would want matter for probation; and on this liberal

principle, I look to the various denominations among us, to

be like children of the same family, differing only, in what

is called, their Christian names.

He shared a lot of great ideals in ``Common Sense.'' He challenged the colonists to dream of an America that would set the example for the world.

Thomas Paine's ideas weren't all great, and we didn't accept all of his ideas. In fact, he wrote a long section in ``Common Sense'' saying that when we form our own Constitution, we should take these 13 Colonies and we should elect a President and alternate among each State, so each State would, in turn, have a different President for the whole group. It is a fairly terrible idea that we never implemented. But this passion about the law being king, we did; this passion about religious liberty, we did; this passion that America would be an example to all mankind, we did.

One hundred fifty thousand copies of ``Common Sense'' were printed. That is an enormous number for that time period. On that January day when the first printings of ``Common Sense'' started being passed around the Colonies, it fanned the flame of that spark of freedom in the hearts of the colonists.

By June 11, 1776, Congress had appointed a committee of five to draft the Declaration: John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, Robert Livingston of New York, and Robert Sherman of Connecticut--by the way, I think two redheads in that group.

The Declaration ended with this simple paragraph. We are familiar with that Declaration. It said:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of

America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the

Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our

intentions, do, in the Name and by the Authority of the good

People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That

these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and

Independent States.

It ended with this:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm

reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we

mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and

our sacred Honor.

And they gave their all. John Hart, one of the signers of the Declaration, from New Jersey, ended up hiding in the woods that December of 1776, just a few months later, while the Hessian soldiers hunted him across the countryside. He died before the war's end.

Richard Stockton, also of New Jersey, wasn't so lucky. He was dragged from his bed, thrown into prison, and treated like a criminal. His home was looted, his fortune stripped away.

Thomas Nelson of Virginia: He commanded the militia and served as a Governor during the Revolution. He had to instruct the artillerymen to fire at his own house when the British started using it as their headquarters. Nelson had used his personal credit to raise money for the cause. The Revolution left him in distress, and he was unable to ever recover what he had lost.

Thomas Heyward, Arthur Middleton, and Edward Rutledge were three South Carolina signers who served in their State's militia and were captured when the British seized Charleston. They spent the rest of the time in prison. They pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

By that December, when all of this was going on to all of these signers of the Declaration, Thomas Paine wrote again, and this time, he wrote directly to the patriots serving with George Washington. In the freezing winter, on December 23, 1776, Thomas Paine wrote these words:

These are the times that try men's souls; the summer

soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink

from the service of [their] country; but he that stands it

now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny,

like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this

consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more

glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too

lightly: It is dearness only that gives every [living] thing

its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its

goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an

article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

It is a good thing for us to be able to stop and reflect on these simple words: What we obtain too cheap we esteem too lightly. Sometimes I am afraid that, as we approach the Fourth of July each year, we will have forgotten the sacrifices of previous generations. In our time period and in this wealthy moment in our Nation's history, we seem to esteem too lightly what was obtained too cheaply, and we forget the great sacrifices of the past.

Generation after generation of American history has set an example of how we have worked for a more perfect Union. Generation after generation has served each other and the children who have come after them so that they could have a better future. It is our generation's turn. The generation that I speak of could have never dreamed of the Capitol that stands on this hill. The generation that I speak of could have never dreamed of the 50 States that would cover this continent, but they did dream this, because it is in Thomas Paine's introduction: ``The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind.''

This Fourth of July, we should recommit ourselves to the cause of freedom, the future of our Nation, and the service to our children and the children not yet born. We are still a great nation, conceived in liberty, born to greatness if we are willing to work and sacrifice and give for each other. No generation in the history of the world has inherited more than we have--no generation. We should not receive it too cheaply or hold it too lightly.

Ironically, as I end my story of an Englishman who became a writer and the inspiration of a nation, I must tell you the end. Thomas Paine died a bitter and broken man. He remained a revolutionary in the fight. He could never stop searching for the next revolution. He went off to France to support the French Revolution and almost lost his head for it. He ended up in prison there. He came back to America and determined that George Washington wasn't as loyal as he was. He spent his last years writing against President Washington: that he was the real traitor and that he wasn't strong enough. He ended up dying alone, isolated, rejecting his faith--and a bitter man.

My fellow Senators and fellow Americans, the war has been won. Freedom, that gift, has been passed on to us. Let's protect it. Let's cherish it. Let's pass it on.

Each generation should be passionate about passing that on to the next generation. That is why, on this Fourth of July, it is not just a day off; it is not just a day to be at the mall; it is not just a great day to be at a lake--it is a great day to contemplate how you will serve our Nation in the days ahead in this generation and how you can pass on the freedom that we have to our children.

Our Nation still needs people who will build on the foundation of liberty. We need writers and soldiers and farmers and moms and dads. We still need people who will run for city council and the school board, people who will pick up trash in the neighborhood, people who will march in a protest and then intentionally go love people and work for the reconciliation of broken relationships. We need people who will start new businesses, give to nonprofits, get involved in their churches, and love their neighbors as themselves.

We are free, but as the Bible says in 1 Peter 2, we should live as free people but not use our freedom as a coverup for evil.

Those of us who have freedom should help others to live in the same freedom we have and to serve with joy. That is the legacy that was passed on to us. That is the legacy we should pass down.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, next week looks like a busy week. That is fine. We have a lot of things we need to be able to cover and to be able to walk through as the Senate.

Next week will be particularly divisive, though, in some of the issues that are coming up. Let me give you two examples that I hear are on the docket for next week. One of them deals with how we vote in America.

In Oklahoma, we know how we vote. Each State determines its own structure of how they vote. In Oklahoma, you can do absentee mail-in voting, with no excuses. If for any reason you want to be able to mail in a ballot, you can do that. You can do in-person voting early. In fact, this year, our State legislature met, and they added another day of in-person voting. So there are lots of days of in-person voting in Oklahoma. You could actually go to the poll the day of the election and be able to vote then. It is up to you.

We have very straightforward voter ID laws. We have a system set up that if you do early voting or absentee voting, all the disputes on those are handled before election day itself, so that on election day, when the polls close at 7 p.m., we then finish all the voting--or the counting, I should say, on early absentee, on early in-person, and then we are counting the day of. Usually by about 10:30 at night on election day, we are done voting and everyone is watching all the final results in from the entire State.

It is a pretty straightforward, clean process that we have seen that is exceptionally reliable. In fact, it is so tough, in 2016, when the Russians were probing different systems to try to get into it, our State was one of the States the Russians tried to get into, couldn't get into our system, and they moved on to other States to try to get into those.

We have a secure system. We have a reliable system. But that is apparently not enough because S. 1 that is coming to the floor next week would say: Oklahoma, we are going to completely change your system. People in Washington, DC, don't like how you vote, don't like your clean, reliable efficiency. Regardless of complaints, we think we want to change it here in Washington, DC.

Interestingly enough, we have a system that can also verify if someone voted twice. In fact, in this past election, 57 people in Oklahoma voted twice. We could verify that after the fact based on all the records, and we can go back and be able to actually prosecute those individuals who chose to vote twice because that is not legal.

Here is what happens when S. 1 comes to the floor. The debate here on S. 1 will begin with no voter ID. Take away your voter ID in Oklahoma. Change the way you do early voting. In fact, change the way the ballots are actually collected entirely. No longer in Oklahoma will we know the winner of our election at 10:30 on election night. S. 1 changes that and said that ballots have to be able to be allowed to trickle in for 10 more days after the election is over. So we won't know at 10:30 at night on election night; we will know 2 weeks later who actually won the elections.

As far as a reliable system that we can all verify and check--oh, no, it changes that dramatically. It now opens up what is called ballot harvesting. Ballot harvesting would allow political operatives to go door-to-door to be able to engage with people who had mail-in ballots and to say to them ``Have you mailed your ballot in?'' If they say ``No,'' they can say ``Well, let's just fill it out right here on the porch, and then you can hand it to me, and I will take it in.''

So on election day, what happens is, political operatives show up with boxes full of ballots and turn in boxes full of ballots with the words ``Trust me; these are all good.''

I would tell you, in Oklahoma, we like it better when the postman carries that ballot or when you actually turn it in to that county or precinct official so we know where it has been, that there has been an accurate chain of custody, not someone showing up with a box full of ballots saying ``Trust me; I collected all of these'' because when that happens and someone is just collecting ballots, you have no idea if the person voting voted for one person and left the rest of them blank and the person carrying them just filled out the rest of the ballot for them. You have no chain of custody at all on it. That is why I say S. 1 makes voting easy, cheating easy, and verifying elections impossible.

This is not the direction we should go. If we want to build trust in our election system in America, let's let each State build trust in their election system for each State, like we do in Oklahoma, where we work together to make sure we can make it as easy as possible for every person to be able to vote and to encourage every person to vote, but when it is over, to verify that election and to be able to know that we can check it all off and to go, regardless of the outcome, we can trust the outcome because we know we can verify it.

Let's make it easy to vote, hard to cheat, and easy to verify--not having Washington, DC, folks here say DC is righteous and States are wrong. I think there are lots of great people all over the country who want to do their elections right and who aren't Republicans or Democrats; they are just people protecting democracies in the States. Let's keep that system.

That is the first of two divisive bills that are coming up next week, which will absolutely fail in this body and should fail in this body. There is a second bill that I understand is coming up next week, as well, and it is called the Equality Act.

Now, I will tell you that it is a great name, and I don't know of anyone on my side of the aisle or on the other side of the aisle who opposes equality. I will state frankly that no person should be discriminated against in America--no person. It is a basic constitutional principle: We are all equal under the law--all of us. We have different ideas about music and food. We have different ideas about sexuality. We have different ideas about occupations. We have different skin colors. We have different faiths. We are a tapestry, and that is one of the things that makes us strong in such a perfect way as to build a more perfect Union. I believe that every person should be protected from discrimination in America, but that does mean every person.

Today, the Supreme Court ruled 9 to 0--9 to 0 in the Supreme Court-- that Catholic Social Services in Philadelphia was being discriminated against by the city of Philadelphia because the city of Philadelphia said to Catholic Social Services: You cannot practice your Catholic faith in foster services.

Now, what is the story?

There have been Catholic services in Philadelphia since the 1700s. For the last 50 years, Catholic Social Services in Philadelphia, this particular organization, has served the neediest children in that area by providing foster services and placement for them. They are a religious organization, a faith-based organization--a Catholic organization--and they believe that God created man and woman and that this is God's design for marriage. So, in their placement of foster children, they place children in homes where there is a man and a woman who are present in marriage because of their profound belief.

There are 20 other foster services in Philadelphia that place foster children in any family situation: husband and wife or two men or two women. There are 20 of those services in Philadelphia, but the city of Philadelphia went to Catholic Social Services and said: You have to be like the other 20. You cannot practice your faith.

Even though, literally, Catholic Social Services had never had a gay family reach out to them for an adoption placement--they had gone to other places--the city of Philadelphia said: No, you have to change your practice.

Unfortunately, Catholic Social Services had to argue for their religious freedom all the way to the Supreme Court, and, today, they ruled 9 to 0 that a faith-based institution cannot be discriminated against because of their faith. They should be able to live out the tenets of their faith and be able to practice them. To me, that is a great decision to make--to say: Why can't we coexist? Why can't we honor everyone in their differences of opinion?

Even the Supreme Court stated today, in its opinion, that there was no work from Catholic Social Services to stop gay marriages in Philadelphia or to stop couples from fostering children who are gay couples there. They just chose not to do it based on their faith. So they were not working against individuals. They were practicing their faith.

Now comes the Equality Act vote next week. The Equality Act would, for the first time ever in this Congress, take away the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in statute--it would remove it--and say there could be no protection for religious institutions. This is a direct shot against the Supreme Court, in its 9 to 0 decision today, which said: No, religious institutions have to be protected in their decisions.

Why can't both exist? Why do we have to get into a situation, as the Equality Act does, that says, if you don't agree with one particular expression, then you have to be canceled? that you have to be silenced? Why has it come to this in America?

The way the Equality Act is written is, with regard to any faith- based institution, if they did any public, outward-facing work at all-- if they fed the homeless, which many do; if they provided clothing; if they took care of individuals with food who needed it--that was considered to be of public accommodation, their labor laws, even if they were religious institutions, had to be exactly like large corporate labor rules as well. It literally imposes on religious institutions that you can be a private entity and be inward facing, but if you are going to do your mission to actually serve the needy, then you have to actually shift to be like corporate America. That is not providing opportunities for people of faith to live their faiths.

I have to tell you that I honor people of faith--people of different faiths, people of faiths that I disagree with. The nature of religious liberty in our country is to be able to honor people of different faiths. That is also what the Supreme Court reaffirmed today directly in contradiction to the Equality Act. Clearly, if this were to pass-- and I do not believe it will--the Supreme Court would hear it immediately, would align with this case from today, and would say: We have already ruled on these issues 9 to 0--that is, against not allowing people to be able to live their faiths.

Unfortunately, there are some in this body who not only vehemently disagree with the Supreme Court and with the opportunity for people to be able to live their faiths, but they are willing to do it in the most pejorative of terms.

When I spoke against the Equality Act in the Judiciary Committee, just weeks ago, and shared the issues that I had that were pragmatic labor issues and set those in front of it and also did a challenge on a religious liberty issue and said, ``Here are the obvious issues of religious liberty where I think it is unconstitutional,'' the response I got from a member of the Judiciary Committee was, This reminds me of the Ku Klux Klan, who burned crosses and used religious symbols to hide behind their bigotry.

The Supreme Court disagreed with that today and said: We are the United States of America. We honor people of faith to be able to live their faiths. We honor people who don't have faith or have differences in their faiths and choose to be able to live that out. This body should not try to cancel out every group of faith in the country that disagrees with people in this body who say: You cannot practice your faith if we tell you no. That is not who we are.

The Equality Act is not about equality. It is about imposing and prohibiting disagreements. We are Americans. We can respect each other and disagree. We can live next-door to each other and disagree. Let's prove it in this body by not passing the poorly named Equality Act but by actually demonstrating what this act says it wants to demonstrate. Let's treat each other with respect in our differences and honor us in that.

I yield the floor.