Floor Statements

Mr. President, 8 months into the humanitarian crisis at the southern border, our Democratic colleagues are finally, finally paying attention. This is after 1.2 million migrants have arrived since President Biden took office, which apparently did not raise any particular alarms. Neither did the countless numbers of migrants who endured abuse at the hands of criminal organizations and human smugglers.

Our colleagues didn't spring into action either when the processing center in Donna, TX, reached 1,600 percent capacity earlier this year, and they didn't show much concern about the fact that the surge had left huge security gaps along our border, making it easier for the drug cartels to move heaven knows what into our country. Actually, we do know what they moved into the country because more than 90,000 Americans died of drug overdoses last year, principally from illegal drugs imported across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Finally, our Democratic colleagues seem to be paying some attention.

Over the last several days, more than 15,000 migrants, primarily Haitians, have arrived at Del Rio, TX, a town of about 35,000 people-- 15,000 migrants in a town of 35,000. You can imagine what sort of reaction they have had. These migrants have set up camp under the International Bridge, and Border Patrol, State, and local officials have been working around the clock to ease the humanitarian crisis. Of course, the first concern in 100-degree temperatures is to try to help protect these migrants, making sure they have food and water and that people don't die of heat stroke.

I want to thank the Border Patrol, which does a lot of good work, and a lot of the good work it does is to save the lives of migrants who are suffering from exposure or injury and have been left behind by the coyotes, but it is also the law enforcement arm of the Federal Government to secure the border.

So the Border Patrol, local, and State law enforcement and everyone seem to come together to meet the surge of migrants in Del Rio, but like the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic, these men and women have been operating in crisis mode for months and are expected to carry the weight of a crisis that everybody knew was coming.

As the Biden administration races to respond to the crisis now, finally, I am left wondering: Why didn't they see this coming? After all, 1.2 million migrants have crossed our border just

since Joe Biden put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office on January 20. The President campaigned, actually, on the promises of policies that were certain to lead to a surge of migrants at the border, and that is just what we have seen.

When the President and Director Mayorkas and Vice President Harris say, ``Don't come,'' the migrants see people pouring across the border in the hundreds of thousands and successfully making their way into the interior of the United States. The human smugglers--the criminal organizations that move migrants from their homes across the border-- are getting rich. They are whispering in the ear of the migrants and saying: These people made it. You can make it too. Just give me my money.

Earlier this year, a woman who crossed the Rio Grande on a smuggler's raft said the Biden administration was the reason that she and her 1- year-old son attempted the dangerous journey at all.

She said: ``That gave us the opportunity to come.''

Some of the closest followers of the President's words and the administration's actions are the cartels and criminal organizations that get rich off of the backs of these migrants. Actually, it is pretty good money. Let's say, on average, these migrants and their families pay $5,000. It varies depending upon where you want to come from. If you want to come from a little farther away, it is a little more expensive. If you are a little closer to the border, it is a little cheaper. But let's say, on average, it is $5,000. If you multiply 1.2 million migrants times $5,000, that is a huge windfall to these criminal organizations. It is good business. It is a great business model.

But migrants suffer at the hands of these cartels and human smugglers. They often arrive malnourished and are suffering from exposure. Many young women and girls have been sexually assaulted. Some of these young girls even arrive pregnant. There are hundreds of young women who are in Del Rio, under the bridge, who are now pregnant. And some of them don't make it at all.

In Brooks County, TX, which is where Falfurrias is--it is an interior checkpoint by the Border Patrol--the practice of the smugglers, the coyotes, is to get people across the river, put them in a stash house, which you have probably seen some pictures of, and then, when the coast is clear, put them in a truck or some vehicle and drive them up the road, past the checkpoint. Before they get to the checkpoint, they say to the migrants: Get out of the car. Here is a gallon milk jug we have filled full of water. Here are some protein bars. We will meet you on the other side of the checkpoint.

Now, some of the land around Falfurrias, where these checkpoints are located, is some of the most difficult territory you can possibly imagine, especially during the summer. Actually, the Vice President, when she was in the Senate--Kamala Harris--and I sponsored a bill to reimburse Brooks County, TX, for burying the bodies of unidentified migrants who died while trying to make that trip around the checkpoint in Falfurrias. They certainly couldn't afford it as they have a very modest tax base.

The cartels are always looking for a business opportunity and an opportunity to make a sales pitch to very receptive ears. When they see the Biden administration releasing migrants into the interior, they use that information to convince others to spend the money it takes to make the dangerous journey north and, certainly, when the Biden administration releases people and tells them: ``Come back later for a court hearing'' or ``Here is a Notice to Report. When you get to where you are going, turn yourself in to ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.'' Of course, it should be no surprise that many, many, many do not show up; they do not report; and they are never heard from again unless they commit a serious crime. Then it is discovered that they have illegally entered the United States and have failed to show up for their court hearings.

The point is, once these people make it into the United States, you had better believe they are on the phone--with text messages, emails-- talking to their relatives back in their home countries. And what do they tell them? They say: I made it. I made it, and you can too.

So they keep coming.

Well, as I said, this is big business for the cartels. They get rich off of the migrants, of course.

Second, when they flood the border with all of these migrants--these huge numbers--it overwhelms the Border Patrol just with unaccompanied children alone. In the Rio Grande Valley Sector, the Border Patrol Chief said he has had to take as many as 40 percent of the Border Patrol off of the border just to take care of and to process these unaccompanied children.

And what do the cartels do? Well, they are not stupid. They are actually pretty smart, and they know, when the Border Patrol is not guarding the border, that this is a tremendous opportunity to move their illegal drugs across the border into the United States. This isn't just some conspiracy theory; this is a tried and true tactic of the narcos.

Earlier this week, the administration admitted to congressional staff that this was a coordinated effort by the cartels to direct Haitian migrants to a single location and overwhelm the Customs and Border Protection. In other words, this entire surge was orchestrated by a bunch of criminals. They intentionally flooded one section of the border so that personnel from others would be moved. In fact, there were 400, I believe, that Chief Ortiz said he moved from other sectors of the Border Patrol to come to Del Rio to deal with this humanitarian crisis. You had better believe the cartels took advantage of the fact that they left holes in our security along the border in order to apply their poison and move more migrants across the border.

Even though we are familiar with the tactic and we have seen it time and again, the administration still removed agents from checkpoints in the Del Rio sector to respond to the migrant surge, playing right into the hands of the cartels when they took agents off the frontline. The cartels are simply playing a game. Well, actually, they are playing three-dimensional chess while the Biden administration is playing checkers, and the cartels are continuing to get rich off of this trafficking in human beings and drugs. It is no surprise this shifting of resources is simply not sustainable. The administration continues to play Whac-A-Mole on the southern border. Every time progress is made on one crisis, another one pops up.

The administration says they are trying to control the crisis in Del Rio, and there were early statements that they would make use of title 42--a public health title--that gives the Border Patrol the authority to expel migrants based on concerns about spreading COVID-19 because these migrants are not tested; they are not vaccinated. Yet they are put on buses and sent off into the interior of the United States to contribute to the ongoing pandemic.

The administration does have tools. Title 42 would have given them the authority to turn back the migrants, at least the adults, but now, with reports that the administration continues to release migrants into the United States, this backsliding will cause this situation to repeat itself. Maybe the next surge won't be in Del Rio. Maybe it will be in the Rio Grande Valley or El Paso or any other sector along the U.S.- Mexico border.

My State has 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico. There are 2,000 miles of common border with the United States and Mexico. So my State is feeling the disproportionate negative impact on our border communities, and they need help. Without a clear, consistent, and effective approach across the entire border, Del Rio will become the new normal.

There are a lot of questions we need to ask the administration, and I am glad that Chairman Durbin announced that we will have an oversight hearing of the Department of Homeland Security in the coming weeks. In particular, I want to know what the administration is doing with these 15,000 individuals once they are processed by Border Patrol.

When Mr. Mayorkas says the process is working, does that mean he is taking these migrants and placing them into the interior of the United States, contrary to the earlier statements that they were going to transport these migrants by airplane back to Haiti?

I would like to know how many of these migrants are being returned

under title 42. How many of them are family units? How many have been released with a Notice to Report--this ``turn yourself in to ICE'' idea? How many of these individuals never report to ICE to commence their immigration court proceedings?

Most importantly, is the DHS following through on their stated intent to expel or remove these individuals? That would be real deterrence. That would discourage more people from coming.

But, if we find out that the administration and the Secretary have been lying to us--that instead of expelling these individuals they have been placing them into the interior of the United States, using this flawed catch-and-release approach--that is a serious problem. Transparency is key, and I hope we will have an opportunity to ask these questions under oath in the coming weeks.

I would also like to know if the administration plans to appeal Judge Sullivan's ruling on the use of title 42. There is only about another week left before Judge Sullivan's order saying that title 42 is no longer available kicks in.

It is important, especially while the pandemic is still upon us, that public health officials have this authority of title 42, because if title 42 isn't available, the Border Patrol tells me they fear they will lose control entirely.

Title 42 has been important during the pandemic, and, as we know, the pandemic is not over.

Unless Judge Sullivan's order is appealed and reversed, the U.S. Government will not be able to use this to expel most of the migrants, and there is no reason to believe that many people--particularly the cartels and others that benefit from illegal immigration--won't try to ride off of Judge Sullivan's most recent decision and obtain an injunction against the use of title 42.

Without title 42, we will once again face overcrowded processing centers and even greater humanitarian crises.

Unfortunately, the migrant surge is only a piece of the crisis in Del Rio. Those who depend on the ports of entry and the bridges at our U.S. international border are dying for lack of economic lifeline that that represents.

And so the Biden administration has been closing these ports of entry without regard for the impact on these border communities. President Biden can't put the ``Open the Border'' sign out for illegal immigration, yet close the border for legitimate trade and travel. It defies common sense, and it is fundamentally unfair.

Well, there is so much more we could say, but the Biden administration can't continue to enable these cartels or send signals to migrants encouraging them to come. This growing crisis isn't fair to law enforcement and it isn't fair to our border communities and it is not fair to the migrants.

We need a clear strategy from the administration that leads to results and stops the humanitarian crisis on our own border.

Madam President, in June, our Democratic colleagues voted on their first and initial efforts to nationalize our State-run and local-run election system. That bill--this legislation, this effort-- had been years in the

making. You know, in some ways, it is interesting to think about because back when our country was founded, there was a big debate on whether we should have a national government or whether we should have a Federal system. And, of course, we opted for a Federal system where the States retained their sovereignty within their authority, and all powers not delegated to the Federal Government were retained by the States and the people. That is the very definition of a Federal system.

So our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle have sort of renewed that debate again, trying to upend our Federal system of governance in favor of a national government, basically a command and control run out of Washington, DC.

When it comes to the takeover of our elections or to try to nationalize our elections, the initial proposal surfaced as a messaging bill in 2019 but over the years has undergone a number of makeovers. Each time, our colleagues have tried to sell this radical change in the way that our elections are run by different appeals.

They have talked about, well, this is important for election security. Remember the 2016 election, obviously--big concerns about Russian misinformation campaigns and cyber attacks, and election security was obviously at top of mind.

Then it was sold as a matter of regaining the voters' confidence that their vote would actually count.

Then it was sold as a way to remove the obstacles that prevented people from voting, which appears to be the current message.

Well, in 2020, in my State alone, but not just in Texas but across the country, we saw a record voter turnout. In my State, we said 66 percent of registered voters cast a ballot--11.3 million people.

The last time I had been on the ballot, 6 years previously, we only had 4.8 million voters, but we went from 4.8 to 11.3 in just 6 years. Now, part of that is because my State has been growing. Between 2010 and 2020, we have seen 4 million new Texans, either born or moved or made their way one way or another to our State.

But the 2020 election saw the largest voter turnout in 120 years--120 years. Well, clearly, if people are voting--including people of color, minorities--are voting at record levels, it is time to come up with a new sales pitch to try to sell this hijacking, really, of our State- and local-run elections.

So a number of States, including my State, have recently passed legislation to address voter confidence, to make sure that elections are fair and that people have an opportunity to vote who are legally qualified to do so. The phrase many of them used in that process was, they tried to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat. So that now has been the focus of our Democratic colleagues in trying to nationalize our State- and local-run elections, which, by the way, is ensconced within the framework of the Constitution itself.

So our Democratic colleagues then attacked the State election laws and really just went over the top in terms of their description of what exactly was happening. Certainly it was not factual, but they said, in a number of cases, these changes in State election laws--and I am thinking of Georgia, Arizona, and Texas in particular--they said that they are the most sweeping attacks on the right to vote since the beginning of Jim Crow, and they said the only way to change that was to pass their election law.

Our colleagues talked about the bill in terms of protecting the right to vote and strengthening our democracy. Who could be against that? But the reality of the situation is very different, and the far-reaching provisions of the Democratic election takeover bill look nothing like the safeguards of democracy; they look more like a partisan power play.

In the end, the only thing bipartisan about the bill was the opposition. In both the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats voted against the initial legislation, but our Democratic colleagues still refuse to recognize the reality of the vote and throw in the towel.

After the failed vote this summer, our colleagues on the Democratic side went back to the drawing board and came back with a new bill they call the Freedom to Vote Act. Well, if we needed any more proof that this is not a good-faith effort to strengthen our election but, rather, a partisan power play, the bill was introduced 1 week ago, and the Senate could end up voting on it as early as this week. That is hardly what I would call a deliberative process, one that even invites bipartisan debate and consideration.

So we may end up being required to vote on the bill--that is certainly the prerogative of the majority leader--with no real committee hearings, no real testimony from experts, and no indication that this bill is really being taken seriously other than to check a box and to send a message.

What has really been interesting is our colleagues on the left have said--they have tried to brand this as a compromise bill. I think that is primarily because of the objection of the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, who said he couldn't support the original bill. So they tried to come up with something that maybe looked more like a compromise but really isn't, and I will talk about that more in a second.

But this bill was not the result of bipartisan deliberations or consultation or communication even. As the Republican leader has noted, this so-called compromise bill is a compromise between the left and the radical left, which is hardly a compromise at all. But that is apparently the way that Leader Schumer decides to run the Senate, after all, passing a $1.9 trillion spending bill right after Joe Biden became President, with no Republican support, under the auspices of being COVID relief when only 10 percent of it actually had anything to do with COVID.

Well, the good news is we have done a few bipartisan things. We passed the Endless Frontier Act--our way of trying to address the challenge of China. We passed a bipartisan infrastructure bill. But now our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to do it alone again, and they are trying to pass a bill that could end up costing taxpayers as much as $5.5 trillion. A nominal figure is $3.5 trillion, but right now, they are experiencing a lot of differences of opinion within their own ranks as to what is acceptable and what is not, and they certainly aren't talking to us.

But all the while, they have continued to work on a partisan effort to overrun our constitutional delegation, really, of the election system to State and local government. So no one should be fooled. This bill is not a compromise in any sense of the word. Just like its predecessor, this bill hijacks State constitutional power to make decisions on things like voter registration and early voting.

Actually, this morning in the Constitution Subcommittee, the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, was talking about the fact that his State, Connecticut, did not have early in-person voting, but they have now passed a bill that provides for a referendum in Connecticut. If the referendum passes, then the State legislature may actually provide for early voting in person.

I would just tell you that the contrast between the rhetoric and the reality is pretty amazing because the Texas election law, passed by the State legislature just recently, provides for 17 days of early voting in person. In other words, there is a fulsome opportunity for anybody who is qualified to vote to cast their ballot in person or by mail if you qualify or on the day of the election. As you can see, with 66 percent of the registered voters actually taking advantage of that generous opportunity to cast their ballot, they did in historic numbers.

Well, there is a saying that ``if it is not broke, don't fix it,'' and there is nothing broke about our State- and local-run election systems. Certainly the guardrails are in place. If, for example, someone were to deny a minority voter the opportunity to cast a ballot or to make sure their ballot counted just like anybody else's, there is section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In fact, the Biden Department of Justice has filed such a lawsuit against Georgia based on the changes in their voting laws. So there is plenty of opportunity to raise these issues in court should the Federal Government and should the Biden administration wish to challenge them, but the truth is, they are going to lose because what they have

tried to do is to change through litigation what they cannot do constitutionally through legislation.

Well, this so-called compromise bill, which is no compromise at all, contains invasive disclosure requirements that would attack the privacy of voters and chill free speech. It places handcuffs on States when it comes to drawing new legislative lines in redistributing, and it threatens action from the Attorney General if those standards aren't met. It makes it too difficult to root out fraud and protect the integrity of the vote by prohibiting voter ID for mail-in ballots and mandating drop boxes for ballots to be dropped by partisan advocates.

You know, people act like there is no such thing as voter fraud, but actually we have a famous case in Texas called Box 13 in Duval County, TX, where Coke Stevenson and LBJ--Lyndon Baines Johnson--were running for the Senate.

You know what they found is, because of the manipulation of the voter rolls by the county judge in Duval County, literally, they had people who were already buried in the cemetery vote in favor of Lyndon Baines Johnson in alphabetical order once they figured out how many votes they needed to cast.

That is just one famous example of voter fraud. Our Democratic colleagues act like it doesn't exist.

But what we did here in the Judiciary Committee a few months ago was the secretary of state for New Hampshire--he is a Democrat, and they don't have any early voting. It was interesting to hear him say that he thinks the single most important factor when it comes to people casting their ballot is people's confidence in the system that their ballot will actually be counted the way they voted. So all of these different times and conditions under which people can cast their ballot, he says, really don't have nearly as big an impact as just the confidence they have that their vote will be counted as they cast it.

And why our Democratic colleagues are opposed to voter ID is beyond me. We know Jimmy Carter and James Baker III--of course, Jimmy Carter, a former Democratic President; and James Baker III, a former prominent Secretary of State and Treasury Secretary. They had a commission to look at things like voter ID, and they actually recommended that voter ID would be one way to instill public confidence in the integrity of the vote.

You have to show your ID when you go through the Transportation Security Administration--TSA--to get on an airplane. You have to show an ID if you are going to buy a pack of cigarettes at a convenience store or six-pack of beer. I mean, we are accustomed to people being required to identify who they are. If you want to get into a Federal building, you have to show an ID.

So the idea that we should prohibit voter ID, to me, is ridiculous, and that is one of the provisions in the Democrat substitute bill which is before us. It would prohibit the use of voter ID through mail-in ballots.

But that is just the beginning. One of the most outlandish--or I should say on top of what I have already talked about--provisions of this bill is the use of taxpayer funds for campaigns. Well, a lot of companies have matching programs for charitable giving. That is a positive, good thing. If an employee donates to a charity of their choice, many times their company will match that donation dollar for dollar. That is a positive thing.

But, here, what happens is, instead of a charity getting the money, it is a political candidate. In other words, our Democratic colleagues are recommending that for every dollar that is donated to a political candidate, the taxpayer kick in an extra 6 bucks.

Well, I know some of these campaigns that we have already run in recently get to be pretty expensive campaigns. But can you imagine that the taxpayers be asked to pony up $6 for every $1 that is contributed to the campaign? And is it really fair to ask taxpayers to subsidize the election of somebody they may disagree with?

It makes no sense to me. Well, this means that if someone donates $200 to the preferred congressional candidate, the Federal Government could match with $1,200. And it is not the Federal Government; it is the taxpayer, by the way.

Then there are the campaign vouchers, which will provide eligible voters with a $25 voucher to donate to the campaign of their choosing. I am not making this up. This is what is in the legislation that, unfortunately, I don't think many people have read or understand.

It is easy to imagine a better use of taxpayer funding, whether infrastructure, help for people who still are in need as a result of the COVID pandemic. It could go to crime victims or support a response to a humanitarian crisis at the border, like we are seeing in Del Rio, TX. But, no, our Democratic colleagues want to put it into the political campaigns of the candidates of their choice.

Well, in addition to the rotten provisions that are maintained from the previous bill, there is even more. The bill places immense power in the office of General Counsel of the Federal Election Commission. He is an unelected official. It lowers the legal standard to overturn voting laws. And it makes election day a Federal holiday, even though the bill mandates 15 days of early voting, which, again, by the way, is less than the State legislature has provided for in Texas. We have 17 days of early voting.

Well, the truth is this is a so-called solution in search of a problem. The truth is there is no voter suppression epidemic.

During the Obama administration, their Justice Department brought four lawsuits--four lawsuits--under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. If you thought there was an epidemic of voter suppression, don't you think the Obama administration would have been more active and more vigilant?

Again, there is the fact that the 2020 elections saw the highest turnout in 120 years for all racial and ethnic groups. Over the last 4 years, States across the country undertook efforts to keep their elections free from fraud and foreign interference.

By the way, one of the conclusions following the 2016 election by the intelligence community was that the dispersed and diffused nature of our elections actually made it harder for Russia to impact the outcome because they would have had to do so in all 50 States.

If this was all run out of Washington, DC, and one black box appeared, it would probably be easier for them to concentrate their efforts on one location rather than 50 locations and increase the likelihood of their ability to influence the outcome.

Well, we have kicked in--here in Congress--hundreds of millions of dollars to help the States keep their elections free from fraud and foreign interference.

But under the Constitution, as currently written, each State has a constitutional authority to govern how their elections are run, and I think it is a good thing--subject to section 2 of the Voting Rights Act if someone commits a foul.

In my State, 29 million people are spread out across major cities and small towns alike. And what works well in our State may not make as much sense in a small, densely populated State like New Jersey, or large, sparsely populated State like Alaska.

That is why it is important that the States be the laboratories of democracy and try to be responsive to the needs of the people in their particular State, because we are not all the same. I believe the leaders in each State know best the unique circumstances of their constituents, and they are best suited to craft voting laws that prioritize both access and security.

A Federal Government hijacking of our State- and local-run election laws will not improve voter confidence in our elections. In fact, it will stir the very fears that Democrats claim they are trying to alleviate. But this isn't really new. It is just a repackaged and new effort to do the same thing, which is to nationalize our elections and run all of them out of Washington, DC, and to discourage commonsense measures, like voter ID, that help bolster public confidence in our elections and diminish the opportunity for people to cheat.

Well, no matter how many times we see this rebranded and new version of this Federal takeover of elections, I will continue to fight any effort to take the constitutional authority given to my State to run our own elections. I certainly am not going to turn

it over to the National Democratic Party.

The Senate will never green light politically motivated attempts to take over America's elections, and that is good thing. And we are not going to go down this road on this new, rehashed, modified, substitute effort to nationalize our Federal elections.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is ironic that I come to the floor to be with my friend, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, with whom I have proudly served and with whom I have worked on many different projects within the intelligence community and the jurisdiction of that committee. But this is one where we clearly see things differently.

Mr. Olsen, for most of his career--and it has been a distinguished career--has operated as a nonpartisan public servant. But as Senator Grassley, ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, said at the time he had his hearing there, once the previous administration took office, it was like a switch got flipped and he turned into a partisan warrior.

Over the last few years, Mr. Olsen has made a series of serious ultrapartisan statements. Prior to the 2016 election, he said that ISIS supported Donald Trump for President. Following the election, he claimed that the electoral college should be abolished because it is a national security threat. He signed on to a number of letters hysterically criticizing then-Attorney General Barr and the Justice Department, and he failed to disclose these writings and other critical information to the Judiciary Committee during the hearing on his nomination.

I believe now, more than ever, it is absolutely critical that the Justice Department and our intelligence community operate free from political influence and bias. But I have no confidence that, if confirmed, Mr. Olsen's partisan switch will get flipped back off. I fear he will continue to pursue his political objectives from within the Department, using the powerful tools of the Department of Justice to pave the way for his partisan political agenda.

And lest anybody think these concerns are unprecedented or groundless, let me just point out that we now have a former lawyer with the FBI that has pled guilty for falsifying an application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in the process of investigating an American citizen. He has now pled guilty and is now serving probation, a lawyer with the FBI who erroneously communicated information to the court with which they relied upon to issue a warrant to surveil an American citizen, using the powers of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

And then, just this last week, another lawyer has been indicted by Mr. Durham, the special counsel--somebody who has a distinguished career as a former Federal prosecutor and has worked at a prominent firm that typically represents the Democratic Party.

He now has been indicted for lying to the FBI, and it rises out of a conversation he had with a general counsel at the FBI, suggesting that there was some link between the Trump administration--or Trump organization and a criminal-linked Russian lender called Alfa Bank.

The indictment says that Michael Sussmann lied about the capacity in which he was providing this information to the FBI. But, in fact, what he did is prepare white papers using confidential information obtained from a technology client and fed that to the FBI while he claimed to be just a good citizen wanting to pass this information along when he was actually on the payroll of the Clinton campaign.

And, obviously, then talking to the press, leaking this narrative to the press, this has, I think, contributed to this false narrative of somehow that the Russians colluded with then-Candidate Trump in order to win the election. There has been no evidence at all, whether if you look at the inspector general report--Inspector General Horowitz--about the now debunked Steele dossier, which supposedly was the basis upon which the FBI opened their investigation.

So what we are talking about is people in positions of trust and confidence in the U.S. Government abusing their power, lying to the FBI, and lying to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to pursue a partisan political objective.

Now, I have no idea what Mr. Olsen would do, but I don't think we can take any risks, given the fact he has now turned into a partisan warrior. We have got ample examples of people who, perhaps against their better judgment, have thrown into this resistance attitude and simply forgotten their professional responsibilities. And when it comes to the intelligence community and national security, we don't need any more partisan warriors in these positions of trust. These should be nonpartisan professionals.

So I don't think Mr. Olsen has certainly satisfied me or many of my other colleagues that he can flip that partisan warrior switch off. For that reason, I object.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, what I was referring to earlier are examples of abuse of power by people in the U.S. Government who are in a position to do things to average citizens that, frankly, if they can do them to powerful individuals like candidates for President or our sitting officeholders, what is the little guy supposed to do?

If people are so blinded by their partisanship or their desire to get somebody that they violate their oath, they violate the law, and abuse power, what is the average man and woman supposed to do?

You know, it reminds me a little bit of the hearing that we had just a couple of days ago in the Judiciary Committee, where this monster named Larry Nassar, an Olympic physician for 18 years, systematically and routinely sexually assaulted and abused young female Olympic athletes.

And for years, these Olympic athletes tried to get the FBI to investigate their allegations against Dr. Nassar.

And it took an extended period of time--I think it was a year and a half--before the FBI actually undertook the investigation. But it took a couple of our colleagues--people like Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut, Senator Jerry Moran from Kansas--in order to stay on this issue until, finally, this monster, Dr. Nassar, was charged with crimes and convicted and now is going to serve in prison the rest of his life.

But it haunts me to think, if these elite Olympic athletes whose names are known all around the world could not get the government to respond to their assault and to do them justice, what chance do the rest of us have? I am not worried about Members of Congress; I am worried about my 29 million constituents.

And so the examples I gave of Mr. Clinesmith, who lied to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to get a warrant to illegally surveil an American citizen--that is an abuse of power that causes me very grave concern.

And when I read the indictment of Michael Sussman lying to the FBI about his connection to the Clinton campaign, while he compiled information that was confidential, gave it to the FBI, claimed to just be a good citizen and not representing any client, when in fact he was on the payroll of the Clinton campaign, and he was systematically leaking this information to the press to feed this narrative about Russian collusion--which has obsessed Congress and the country for years.

And now we know there is no factual basis for the allegations against then-Candidate Trump or then later President Trump. The Russian collusion narrative was not true, but it was fed by partisans who abused their power in order to gain politically.

So I don't know Mr. Olsen that well. Like I said, I know he has had a distinguished career. But something clearly snapped when he became a partisan lawyer. And I simply do not have confidence that he will not abuse his power in pursuit of his partisan aims.

There are better people that the President could nominate to serve in this sensitive position, and I will not, in good conscience, agree to simply allow somebody with this sort of track record to be confirmed.

And as my colleagues know, the majority leader has all the tools he needs at his disposal to have a vote on the Senate floor on this nomination. But it shouldn't be done by unanimous consent. It shouldn't be done outside of the public attention because there are so many things competing for people's attention. I think this is a debate and a conversation we need to have about powerful public officials abusing their power for partisan political gain.

What chance does the average American have if they will abuse that power to go after powerful public figures like a candidate for President or an incumbent President of the United States?

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks before the vote.

Mr. President, our friends across the aisle are moving full steam ahead with what I think is fairly described as a reckless tax-and-spending spree, which is chock-full of unnecessary, unwarranted, and flatout unaffordable policies.

Remember that we had to spend a lot of money--borrowed money--during the COVID crisis, which we did on a bipartisan basis because it was a national--indeed, an international and global emergency.

But as we continue to get people vaccinated and put the pandemic in the rearview mirror, our colleagues simply want to continue spending money that we don't have to pursue their ideological and political agenda, to grow the government, to intrude more in people's lives, and to take more of what they earn rather than let them spend it as they see fit.

Our colleagues want to impose crippling tax hikes on job creators at a time when many of them are still digging out of the recession that was part of the pandemic. They want to dole out permanent welfare without requiring able-bodied men and women to work. They want to discourage medical innovation through price fixing and implement a range of items from their far-left wish list.

After charging nearly $2 trillion on the taxpayers' credit card earlier this year, our Democratic colleagues are back at it for round 2. And this time, they are going all out. That is especially true when it comes to the energy sector.

Over the past few years, we have seen no shortage of unrealistic and downright harmful policies to reduce carbon emissions. Now, there is a smart way to do it, and there is a self-defeating way to reduce emissions. One is to reduce the use of coal and increase the use of things like natural gas, which has much lower carbon content than coal. And we are doing that, and we have reduced emissions as a result.

But our colleagues have proposed everything from the socialist paradise that is the Green New Deal to more targeted but no more realistic net zero emission bills.

This reckless tax-and-spending spree compiles the most outlandish proposals into one of the greatest hits albums. The hallmark of this legislation is a full range of tax increases on the fossil fuel industry, which ultimately are passed along to consumers and contribute to inflation and the increased costs that they have to pay in order to fill up at the pump.

Whether we are talking about energy, agriculture, or any other industry, higher taxes always mean higher prices for consumers. It is inevitable.

Businesses can't just take the increases as a hit to their bottom line. They might raise taxes, lay off employees, postpone expansion plans, or implement all of the above, but that is exactly what this proposal would spur when it comes to the energy sector.

It increases taxes already paid by energy companies on income earned in the global marketplace and subjects energy employers to double taxation of their foreign income. It also adds a brand new tax, the Superfund excise tax, which was eliminated 25 years ago--all in pursuit of more revenue to grow the size of the government.

Our friends across the aisle want to resurrect this tax and force energy companies to pay more on every barrel of crude oil that is sold. Once again, the ultimate burden won't be on those companies. It will fall to consumers who are already struggling to keep up with inflation.

Gasoline prices are up 42 percent over last year. Natural gas is up 21 percent. Families in Texas are paying more on everything from electricity to groceries, to vehicles. This smorgasbord of higher taxes will only drive up costs for working families and hurt the very job creators we have been trying to help, over the last year and a half, dig out from under COVID-19.

You have to wonder, if these policies are going to hurt working Americans and the economy, who benefits? Well, for starters, our geopolitical adversaries will benefit. The higher cost on domestic crude would, once again, make the U.S. reliant on imports of oil and gas from overseas, from countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela perhaps.

President Biden unintentionally demonstrated the hypocrisy of this approach when he pushed, earlier this year, to beg OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, to increase production overseas to bring down oil prices here in the United States. In other words, he doesn't want American oil and gas producers to produce oil and gas. He wants the Russians and the Saudis to do it to help us bring down prices here in America.

It is just crazy. It makes no sense. If the President is worried about affordable energy, he needs to quit pushing policies that will drive up the cost for consumers at the pump.

Other big winners include wealthy electric vehicle drivers. The sort of subsidies that are contained in this proposed package includes a tax credit for electric vehicle purchases, even if these cars are made--you guessed it--in China. And it is subsidizing--it is taking middle-income taxpayers' money and giving it to people who are buying expensive cars because they are incentivized by the tax credit. Meanwhile, we have 280 million cars on the road in America that still depend on oil and gas in order to function because they have, yes, an internal combustion engine.

On top of that, a bigger tax credit is given to electric cars built in union shops. Now, why would you favor a political supporter like organized labor?

Well, I think the answer may be pretty obvious. Maybe union-built electric vehicles are more green than other electric vehicles or maybe it is a favor doled out to a special interest group by my friends on the other side, to a political constituency.

As a reminder, unlike gas-powered vehicle drivers, EV drivers don't even pay anything for the highways that they drive their car on. They don't pay into the highway trust fund, which comes out of the cost of a gallon of gas, to help maintain our roads and bridges.

So our friends across the aisle just keep on coming with tax breaks for the well-off and the well-to-do in a way that will burden hard- working Texans and Americans.

I support efforts to reduce carbon emissions to preserve our air, land, and water for future generations, but these efforts shouldn't pick winners and losers, especially when wealthy Americans are reaping the benefits at the cost of blue-collar workers.

Like the rest of the reckless tax-and-spending spree proposal, the cost of this energy proposal far exceeds any benefit. It will drive up costs for American families, hurt our global competitiveness, ultimately hurt our allies that depend on exported LNG to provide energy diversity, and it will empower our adversaries.

So there is no reason to stick taxpayers with the bill for these unnecessary policies when there are better ways to keep costs for consumers low while protecting our environment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill's purpose is to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in San Angelo, Texas, as the ``Colonel Charles and JoAnne Powell Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''.

Madam President, the crisis along our southern border is bad and has been getting worse since Joe Biden became President.

Last month, more than 200,000 migrants crossed our southern border-- the second month in a row that we have seen a number that high. Since President Biden raised his right hand and took the oath of office on January 20, Customs and Border Protection has stopped more than 1.2 million border crossers. That is nearly triple the total number it was at this point in the Obama administration, and more than eight times the number of migrants stopped at this point during the Trump administration.

These numbers have real consequences. Migrants are exploited, abused, raped, and some die on their dangerous trips to our border. Once they arrive, Border Patrol, local law enforcement, and nongovernmental organizations are expected to do a lion's task with a mouse's resources, and the surge of resources to migrants leaves serious security vulnerabilities that are exploited by cartels and criminal organizations.

Even before this current crisis with Haitians, Border Patrol officials have told me, just to deal with unaccompanied children and the number of migrants coming to the border, that as many as 40 percent of the Border Patrol have had to leave the front lines of protecting the border, which means that the drug cartels can simply exploit those gaps in the Border Patrol's security line in order to move illegal drugs into the United States that, last year alone, took the lives of more than 90,000 Americans by overdose.

As though things weren't challenging enough already, the city of Del Rio, with a population of 35,000 people, has been flooded by a group of nearly 15,000 migrants. Can you imagine? A city of 35,000 sees this huge human tsunami of 15,000 migrants almost exclusively from Haiti.

By the way, this ought to demonstrate that this is not just a regional phenomenon. I know the Vice President went down to Central America and said that she talked to the Presidents of the Central American countries, of the Triangle countries, and said: Please don't send your people to the United States.

Meanwhile, the green light was on at the border as a result of the refusal to enforce the basic security laws that were put in place by the previous administration. In fact, it looks like the guiding principle of the Biden administration was, whatever the previous administration did, we are going to undo it.

They forgot to put an alternative plan in place, and so the people keep coming--1.2 million migrants, just so far, since the Biden administration began. Well, migrants have now set up a camp under the International Bridge in Del Rio, in 100-degree temperatures. And they have been so brazen that they literally have gone back and forth across the river to Mexico to purchase supplies--food, water, or whatever. They have been able to go back and forth virtually at will.

Border Patrol and State and local officials have been working around the clock to ease the humanitarian crisis that President Biden and his policies created, and they are being overwhelmed.

As I said, Del Rio isn't a huge city with unlimited resources. It is, roughly, 2\1/2\ times the size of the migrant group, and like other border communities, the city has experienced a one-two punch in the last year and a half because of COVID-19. First came the pandemic and a full range of new expenses. Then the strain was compounded by the restrictions on so-called nonessential cross-border travel, which has been in place for a year and a half.

Pre-pandemic folks from Mexico, if they had the proper paperwork, would travel across the border to shop, to eat, and to visit family members, and they were huge economic drivers of our border communities.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas estimated that, prior to these restrictions, between 40 to 45 percent of all retail activity in Laredo, for example, was attributable to Mexican nationals. That has dried up completely.

Leaders in Texas, like the ones I met with in Brownsville last week, are struggling to understand the contradiction between the Biden administration's two different approaches. On the one hand, the administration is saying it is too dangerous for Mexican nationals to visit families in Texas or to shop in our stores because of the virus; but on the other hand, the administration is allowing 1.2 million migrants to cross our borders--untested, unvaccinated, most of whom are simply waved on through into the interior of the United States and told to appear at a future court hearing, which most of them will never show up for.

We simply don't know what kind of risks these untested, unvaccinated migrants who are being waved into the interior of the United States could pose to communities in Texas or across the country.

Just last week, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that, without stronger COVID-19 testing measures in place, the Department is putting everyone--migrants, Border Patrol agents, Customs agents, and the local communities along the border--at greater risk.

Still, the Biden administration has refused to take any sort of serious action that would stop the flood of humanity coming across our border. Yes, they have paid lip service. They have said: Don't come.

Meanwhile, the migrants are on the phone, talking to family in the United States, or they are simply watching American TV as the flood of humanity continues to come across the border without there being any real consequences.

On Friday, the current surge of primarily Haitian migrants became so overwhelming that the Biden administration closed a legal port of entry in Del Rio, as well as interior checkpoints.

For those of our colleagues who have actually been to the border, they know that Customs and Border Protection checks people as they enter the country at the border, but there are also interior checkpoints because we know many people aren't identified until they are found in an 18-wheeler trailer or embedded in some sort of hiding place or when the drugs that people are trying to smuggle into the United States are found often at the interior checkpoints.

Because of the flood of humanity coming across the border because the Border Patrol at Del Rio was so overwhelmed, 400 Border Patrol agents were reassigned from other places, including interior checkpoints, to come help deal with the masses. That created a huge vulnerability for the drug smugglers and human smugglers. So-called nonessential travel was already shut down, but the administration bungled the entire situation so badly that they had to shut down essential trade and travel as well.

Last Friday, I spoke with Border Patrol Deputy Chief Manny Padilla-- somebody I have known for years and who used to be the chief of the Rio Grande Valley's sector of the Border Patrol. He told me that the main focus at the time, of course, was trying to deal with the humanitarian crisis of getting food, water, and sanitation to these individuals. Once the most urgent humanitarian needs are met, the processing and potential removal of migrants will move more quickly.

So far, a few thousand migrants have been moved to other Border Patrol sectors for processing. Again, because Del Rio's sector was overwhelmed, they had to bus them as far away as Arizona just to process people through the border. Some have already been returned to Haiti, and in the coming days, we can expect more flights to move some of the thousands of migrants back home.

The Department of Homeland Security has claimed that they will use title 42, a public health authority, to expel the vast majority of migrants. But the administration needs to be honest with us.

Will they use this title 42 authority--again, to protect the public health--to expel migrant families, too, and not just single adults? If not, will the Department use the expedited removal authority to swiftly remove these migrant families and, in doing so, deter others from coming? Or will they essentially continue to wave people through, encouraging even more migrants to make their way to the border? And will these migrants that they do have remain in custody until a removal decision is rendered?

We know that catch and release simply doesn't work. It can be exploited to the point where people know that, if we don't detain them, we will give them this notice to appear--sometimes called, in Spanish, a permiso--and they will be sent into the interior of the United States, many of whom are never heard from again.

The Department of Homeland Security and the administration need to back up their proposed plans of dealing with this crisis--and their public statements--with real and immediate consequences to cut off the flow and deter future immigration.

There is a clear and urgent need for Congress to take action, and contrary to what our Democratic colleagues believe, blanket amnesty is not the answer. That will serve as an additional magnet for illegal immigration.

Rather than address the crisis at hand, our Democratic colleagues have spent the bulk of this year figuring out how to bend the rules of the Senate to grant citizenship to millions of people who have entered this country illegally.

Their plan would have provided legal status to people who entered the country as recently as this year, as long as they would have been 18 years or younger when they had arrived. It would have turned our ag sector on its head by legalizing unlawfully present farmworkers with absolutely no provisions to ensure that our agriculture producers would have access to a stable workforce. And it would have legalized millions of people with temporary protected status without even addressing the fact that this temporary program has been in existence for three decades.

There is a reason that Senate Democrats tried to pass a partisan bill by using the arcane budget procedures instead of the normal legislative process. These policies do nothing to alleviate the crisis that has existed on the border since Joe Biden became President. They fail to address the underlying reason people are unlawfully present and living in the shadows in the first place, and they literally reward illegal immigration. It is unfair to those immigrants who follow our laws and wait patiently in line.

Yesterday, the Senate Parliamentarian confirmed what we already suspected, and that is that our Democratic colleagues will not be able to use budget procedures to grant citizenship to millions of undocumented immigrants in a purely partisan budget reconciliation bill. Our Democratic colleagues have said they have a plan B, and while I haven't seen any details about what that might entail, I seriously doubt it will succeed. I hope our colleagues will respect the decision made by the neutral, unbiased guidance of the Parliamentarian and avoid nuking the rules of the Senate to achieve a partisan political goal.

In the meantime, there is a clear and urgent crisis on our southern border, and President Biden has proven that he is either unwilling or incapable of addressing it.

But Congress also has a duty to take action that can only be done in a bipartisan way. It is not too late for our friends across the aisle to abandon their partisan amnesty plan and work with us on this side to address the actual crisis at hand.

And I have a suggestion about where we can start. Last April, Senator Sinema, the senior Senator from Arizona, and I introduced the Bipartisan Border Solutions Act to address this unfettered flow of immigration.

I have been proud to also work--we have both been proud to work with two friends and colleagues in the House--Congressman Henry Cuellar, a Democrat, and Tony Gonzales, a Republican. So it is literally a bipartisan and bicameral piece of legislation.

Perhaps it is because the four of us live in and represent border States, we have spent time listening and learning from the men and women who safeguard our border and those who care for migrants and those who live in these border communities that are disproportionately impacted.

There are a lot of people who talk about what has happened at the border who have never even been there. They inaccurately characterize border communities as unsafe and lawless. They villainize the Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies for actually enforcing the laws that Congress has passed. And they propose blanket solutions to the complex challenges that exist, which would do far more harm than good.

The fact is, the border is a beautiful, safe, and vibrant region. The men and women who lead and protect these communities are doing everything in their power to fairly and humanely respond to the crisis, but they are simply being overwhelmed and asked to do something that is the Federal Government's responsibility.

That is why our legislation is important. It would streamline the processing of migrants in regional processing centers that would provide new protections for unaccompanied children, one-third of whom have been lost--lost--because they have been placed with sponsors, and when the Federal Government tries to follow up and find out how they are doing, a third of them never respond, and they are lost to the system.

Our bill would also expedite legal proceedings and ensure that we have enough immigration judge teams, asylum officers, and staff to do things the right way. A number of groups have endorsed the bill, not partisan groups, and it constitutes a simple starting point that Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on.

Democrats cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the humanitarian crisis on our southern border. To borrow a phrase from a sign held by one Del Rio resident last week: ``No more optics. We want action.''

Mr. President, in the final days of the U.S. military's presence in Afghanistan, our country suffered a devastating loss. Thirteen servicemembers were killed in a terrorist attack at the airport in Kabul, marking the deadliest day for the U.S. military in more than a decade in that country.

These young men and women, all between the ages of 20 and 31, were taken from loving families--parents, siblings, spouses, fiancees--even a baby on the way.

In Laredo, TX, on Monday, I had the solemn honor of attending the funeral for one of these heroes and offering my condolences to his family.

U.S. Marine Corps LCpl David Lee Espinoza was only 20 years old when he lost his life last month, but he represented the very best of the Marine Corps, the U.S. military, and the very best of America.

From childhood, he dreamed of serving in the military. He joined the Marines right after high school to serve his country and to protect our freedom. And last month, he made the ultimate sacrifice in service to that mission.

The pride in this young marine and the gratitude for his service and sacrifice was visible throughout the Laredo community. Driving through Laredo from the airport, the streets were lined with folks, including schoolchildren holding up American flags in honor of LCpl Espinoza. Veterans from across the State proudly stood outside the entrance to St. Patrick Catholic Church to pay tribute to their fallen brother. And across the street, a giant American flag hung from the ladder of two fire trucks.

I attended the mass, officiated by Bishop James Tamayo, and paid my respects to David Espinoza's family and other members of his family.

There is nothing we can do to bring back LCpl Espinoza, but we can ensure that his service and sacrifice, and that of the other servicemembers killed that day, will never be forgotten.

I join those across the country who are mourning the loss of their heroes and honoring the sacrifices they have made for our freedoms. To me, one of the most unique things about the U.S. military--this is not just about our freedom. They were protecting the rights and the freedom and the dignity of people on the other side of the planet. Our Nation is forever grateful to these young men and women and their loved ones who made unfathomable sacrifices for our freedoms.

Mr. President, we are back in session after a busy August, and we are hitting the ground running in the U.S. Senate.

This week, congressional committees have heard from top Biden administration officials about the disastrous withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan. In the months to come, there will be more questions about the decisions that led to the collapse of that country and how the administration plans to protect the American people from terrorist threats moving forward.

You know, the whole premise of our going to Afghanistan in the first place was to deny vacuums that could be filled by terrorist organizations like al-Qaida and ISIS and thus represent a threat to the homeland not only of people in Europe and in the region but also

to the people here in the United States. Some called 9/11/2001 a failure of imagination because we never imagined that terrorists overseas would plan and execute a terrorist attack that would kill 3,000 Americans using 2 airplanes to fly into the World Trade Center.

So now, with the embarrassing and disastrous withdrawal by the Biden administration of our troops from Afghanistan, the question is, How long will it take the terrorists to reconstitute themselves and present a clear and present danger to not only the region but also the continent of Europe and the United States? But for right now, we deserve and the American people deserve answers and accountability. And it is not just these 13 marines who lost their lives in Afghanistan; other American servicemembers have lost their lives and literally their limbs to try to deny a safe haven to terrorist organizations like al- Qaida and ISIS.

I worry that they may worry that their sacrifices may have been in vain if, in fact, these terrorists occupy this vacuum which has now been created with a very hospitable Taliban, which was responsible for hosting al-Qaida in the first place. I worry that these troops feel like their sacrifice has been in vain. But I want to assure them that they did what they were asked to do by their Commander in Chief with honor and respect and great personal sacrifice. And no matter what happens going forward, nothing will ever change the respect and the honor that we have for them and their service.

Mr. President, we also have a fast-approaching government funding deadline. To be specific, we have about 16 days before we will be knee deep in a government shutdown unless Congress appropriates money to keep the lights on. Following a year and a half of economic instability, there is no justification to unleash even more uncertainty on our economy and on hard-working American families. Then, on top of that, we are told that our Democratic colleagues intend to pass a $3\1/ 2\ trillion--probably closer to $5 trillion--reckless tax-and-spending- spree bill, otherwise known as reconciliation.

You know, during the last year, during the COVID-19 crisis, we worked very well together because we knew this was a national emergency that did not respect political parties or ideology or persons, and we had to do everything we could on an emergency basis to help. But that emergency is quickly getting in our rearview mirror, and our Democratic colleagues seem to be determined to continue to recklessly spend borrowed money that will have to be repaid by the next generation of Americans and to raise taxes to the highest level in recent memory, thus compounding the risk not only of inflation, which is a regressive tax on working families when the food they put on the table, the gasoline they buy, and the appliances they buy all are seeing prices going up at very quickly escalating levels. There is a real danger that this sort of reckless tax-and-spending spree will have a very negative effect not only on them but also on our economy more generally.

For months, we know our Democratic colleagues have been debating back and forth about how much they are willing to spend on a liberal wish list. The chairman of the Budget Committee initially floated a staggering figure of $6 trillion.

Now, I never dreamed that in my lifetime--certainly in my service here in the U.S. Senate--I would ever vote for a trillion-dollar bill, but I did during the emergency called COVID-19 because I thought it was necessary. But this kind of reckless spending is not necessary. This is an ideological juggernaut to try to achieve things to transform this country into some western European social democracy--social welfare state.

Well, after months of negotiating amongst themselves, our Democratic colleagues have now settled not on a $6 trillion figure but on $3\1/2\ trillion. It is still a shocking number. Nonpartisan budget experts, as I indicated, said the actual cost would end up closer to $5\1/2\ trillion, so don't be fooled by this so-called appearance of self- restraint. This plan is chock full of damaging tax hikes, permanent welfare with no work requirements, Green New Deal climate mandates, and a laundry list of socialist policies.

A party-line vote just before the recess laid the groundwork for the biggest government spending bonanza in American history, but now some of our Democratic colleagues are experiencing a little buyer's remorse, perhaps given the rapidly approaching date for the 2022 elections, and they are expressing some remorse or hesitation before swiping the taxpayers' credit card once more.

Senators Manchin and Sinema have both voiced their opposition to the extreme $3\1/2\ trillion figure. Earlier this month, Senator Manchin wrote an op-ed explaining why he won't support such irresponsible spending. Our colleagues ought to read it and to consider his arguments. He said Democratic leaders in Congress have proposed passing ``the largest single spending bill in history with no regard to rising inflation, crippling debt, or the inevitability of future crises.''

The fractures in the reckless tax-and-spending spree aren't just deepening in the Senate; House Democrats are beginning to wring their hands, trying to figure out if they can justify such extreme spending and taxing. And I must say it certainly will require some creative thinking.

Trillions more in borrowing when American families are already being pummeled by inflation; a sweeping amnesty with no effort to control the growing immigration crisis at the southern border; tax hikes on American families and small businesses--our Democratic colleagues are proposing the most extreme policy proposals that one might imagine in this one massive bill. So getting their Members on board is half the battle, but we are now seeing the internal debates and discussions among Democrats wondering if this is the wisest course of conduct, because there is no doubt about it--this is a massive amount of money, and Democrats are going to have to raise the debt ceiling by themselves if they want to write a check that big.

This is where things get a little kooky. Even though this is a partisan spending spree, our friends across the aisle expect Republicans to join them in raising the debt ceiling, claiming that this should be a bipartisan effort. But it is clear Democrats don't require Republican support. They can attach this credit increase to the tax-and-spending-spree bill and pass it with only Democratic support. The only problem is, they don't really want to own it. They want political cover. They want us to help them pull the pin out of the economic grenade that they are about to toss in the laps of the American people. When this reckless tax-and-spending spree inevitably blows up, they want to be able to blame someone else. They want plausible deniability.

But it is not going to work that way. Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, and folks on our side of the aisle have made it crystal clear on that point for months. If they want to spend alone, they are going to have to address the debt ceiling alone. Our Democratic colleagues can't cut Republicans out of the process when it is convenient and then beg cooperation when they need someone else to blame.

I have no doubt that our colleagues across the aisle will come up with a host of gimmicks to try to get Republicans on board. Some have suggested threatening to shut down the government or withholding critical disaster relief. To be absolutely clear, folks on our side of the aisle do not want a government shutdown. The American people and our economy are already experiencing enough pain. In my State of Texas, we suffered enough natural disasters for me to understand how critical it is to get disaster relief out the door as quickly as possible. Communities impacted by hurricanes and wildfires do not deserve to be treated as political pawns on a chessboard.

If Democrats want to charge $5\1/2\ trillion to the taxpayers' credit card, they will have to increase the credit limit themselves, and they can do it by themselves with the $3\1/2\ trillion social welfare bill, and they can't treat disaster victims and government funding as hostages.

Our Democratic colleagues already went on one partisan spending spree earlier this year--an additional $1.9 trillion under the guise of providing COVID relief, when only about 10 percent of it actually addressed COVID.

That has fueled, in the opinion of people like former Democratic economists, office holders--Larry Summers, for example, who said that we are risking a growth of inflation, which will raise prices on commodities and things that people need in their daily lives in order to live and thus form an invisible tax.

As it stands today, our debt is roughly 107 percent of our gross domestic product--$28.7 trillion and counting. Most of us can't imagine what a trillion dollars is, much less a billion dollars, but it is roughly $28.7 trillion. And the sad news is, somebody is going to have to pay that back--somebody. I believe it is simply immoral for us to continue spending, borrow money, raise the debt, and expect future generations to pick up the tab. We know, at the same time, families are being hammered by inflation, as I said, and small businesses are still trying to lure employees back to work.

So we are not going to assist with an encore performance of the partisan spending spree that we saw earlier this year. If our Democratic colleagues believe this partisan tax-and-spending spree is a wise investment for the American people, they are going to have to sell it to the American people and up the credit limit on their own.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill's purpose is to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the United States Army Dustoff crews of the Vietnam War, collectively, in recognition of their extraordinary heroism and life-saving actions in Vietnam.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I voted for Mr. Davis's nomination in the Judiciary Committee and I support it. But I think the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my friend from Illinois, could help me try to resolve a problem that I have primarily with the chief law enforcement officer of the United States; that is, the Attorney General. The Attorney General simply will not answer his mail.

Let me explain. Back in March, I wrote a letter to the Attorney General urging him to conduct an investigation of a chemical company named Avantor and their role in the opioid epidemic that is sweeping America and the planet.

In 2020, 93,000 Americans died of drug overdoses, with 69,000-plus of those from opioids, including heroin. Avantor is a leading producer of a chemical precursor known as acetic anhydride, a key chemical used to convert opium to heroin. Avantor's product has been used extensively by drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations with the apparent knowledge of Avantor officials, who have taken inadequate measures to prevent the diversion of this chemical, particularly in Mexico.

Alarmingly, Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta holds millions of dollars in Avantor stock, and her father sits on the board of that company, raising serious ethical issues.

As I said, I simply want the Attorney General to answer my letter. I sent a letter to him asking about the investigative status of Avantor and its involvement in the facilitation of heroin production, but have yet to receive a response more than 4 months later.

In light of the serious issues that I have raised in this letter and the lack of a response from the Justice Department, I placed a hold on this nominee and will not lift my hold until I receive a sufficient response.

So I object.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Illinois, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, could resolve this issue in the next hour; and I would lift my hold if he would simply ask the Attorney General of the United States to answer my letter, which I sent 4 months ago, which we have received no response to.

Drug overdoses have taken the lives of 93,000-plus Americans in the last year alone. Most of those drugs come across the southern border from Mexico, including heroin, which is an opioid, which together with prescription drugs--which we know have been widely abused--is a serious threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the American people.

I simply want to make sure that American companies are not complicit in selling precursor chemicals that produce this poison, that is then imported into the United States and has taken so many American lives.

This is, as I said, no reflection on the nominee himself. But as the distinguished Senator from Illinois knows, Senators have very few tools, very little leverage to actually get the executive branch to do what they are obligated to do, which is simply to respond to our inquiries and our letters. That is a simple matter.

This does not implicate the safety and security of the Federal judiciary, as the Senator knows. This is an administrative position, and we all support the safety and security of all of our judicial officials.

So this could be satisfied very quickly and, literally, within the next hour if the chairman of the Judiciary Committee would simply pick up the phone, call the Attorney General, and ask him to answer his mail.

Mr. President, I have to respond.

For the Senator from Illinois to say that Vanita Gupta has no relationship with Avantor, the company that has been selling this precursor drug into Mexico that is used to manufacture heroin--it is true, she is not part of the board of directors or the administration or the leadership of that corporation, but she literally owns or did own tens of millions of dollars of stock in Avantor. We do not yet know whether she has kept her promise to sell that Avantor stock. She said she would during her confirmation hearing, and we are investigating to see whether she actually followed through and kept that promise.

But for one of the chief law enforcement officers of the United States to own tens of millions of dollars' worth of stock in a company that arguably violated U.S. law by selling chemical precursors into Mexico that are used to make heroin that has killed so many Americans through drug overdoses is a serious matter. I would not raise this issue if I did not feel that it was so serious. Again, I think the solution is very simple. But the suggestion that Ms. Gupta has no relationship with Avantor is simply not true unless she has, unbeknownst to us at this point, disgorged the tens of millions of dollars of stock that she owns in that company.

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

Madam President, now that cloture has been invoked on the substitute bill, we are one step closer to completing this product, which has been the subject of bipartisan negotiation with the White House for quite some time. I know a lot of hard work has been put into this, and I want to thank all of our colleagues who have contributed to it.

After much anticipation, we finally received the bill text earlier this week. Of course, a lot of it was what we expected to see: funding for roads, bridges, ports, waterways, airports, and broadband.

Under normal circumstances, an infrastructure bill would go through a long and arduous committee process

before ever coming to the floor. Members of the committees of jurisdiction would have an opportunity to debate and offer amendments and get votes on their proposals to try to improve the bill at the committee level. This provides a very important part of the ability of everybody to be able to participate in the process, one that is denied members of their committees of relevant jurisdiction when a bill comes to the floor already negotiated.

One of the challenges is when you have 20 people who agree on something and then they bring it to the floor, and, of course, then the 80 who have not been part of that discussion want to participate and want to try to improve the underlying bill.

I hope that now that the cloture on the substitute has been invoked, there will be an opportunity for us to vote on some additional amendments.

I have been working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to identify new pay-fors that could be adopted as amendments, and we have come up with some good ideas that I hope can receive votes now, even postcloture.

But I want to talk specifically about an amendment that I have worked on with Senator Padilla, the junior Senator from California, to fund infrastructure projects in communities across our country without increasing the deficit. Our amendment simply gives States and local governments the flexibility to use unspent COVID relief funding on infrastructure projects.

Right now, there are limitations that we put on that funding. Of course, at the time those limitations or guardrails were put on that funding, we didn't know how long this pandemic would last or what the actual needs were of the various States and local jurisdictions.

So qualifying expenses include things that are directly related to the pandemic, like COVID-19 testing sites, vaccine PSAs, and additional bed space for hospitals. But here is the rub: That funding cannot be used on expenses unrelated to the pandemic or items that were previously included in the budget. They must be new pandemic-related expenses.

In theory, and at the time, that made a lot of sense. After all, this funding was meant to bolster the fight against COVID-19 in our communities. But not every community has the same need. In many places, the most urgent needs aren't related to the pandemic because they have not been hit quite as hard as others, unfortunately, around the country. Some of their most urgent needs are what we are talking about here today: infrastructure--roads and bridges and the like.

We all know that the pandemic has interrupted infrastructure improvements across the country and forced officials to put many of these projects on the back burner. Maintenance, repairs, and construction projects have been put on hold, as you know, until there was enough funding to get things back on track.

I have heard from my constituents in Texas--State and local leaders-- who are frustrated by this lack of flexibility with the Federal funding that they have already received or which they expect to receive. They simply like the option--not a mandate, but an option--to use this money when and where it is needed most.

But as I say, right now, their hands are tied. Many States and localities have relief funds on hand but no necessary qualifying expenses. They have to look at this big balance in their bank account knowing they can't actually spend it on some of their most urgent needs. That is especially the case in rural parts of the country.

In places where COVID numbers are, thankfully, low, leaders don't have the need or the opportunity to spend this money which we have already appropriated on the timeline set within that legislation. They simply don't have a need for the full range of pandemic-related resources that might be necessary in some parts of the country with higher case counts.

So the amendment that Senator Padilla and I have offered would simply give leaders in rural and urban areas alike, where appropriate, the option--the option--to spend the funding on necessary infrastructure projects. That can mean widening a highway, making safety improvements on a bridge, or expanding broadband access. Urban areas could even use these funds for public transit improvement projects. State and local leaders know the needs of their community better than any of us here, and they should have the flexibility to spend that money where it is needed most.

But, Madam President, I think we have had a recent bit of evidence of how long it takes for Congress to act before the money that we appropriate actually gets to the intended beneficiary. To me, nothing is more exemplary of that than the eviction moratorium. Congress appropriated $46 billion in rent relief, but if you look around the country, many of the intended beneficiaries of that rent relief have not yet seen that money, thus the movement toward extending the moratorium.

I know just from my own experience in Texas, after Hurricane Harvey, where Congress appropriated billions of dollars in relief, it has taken, literally, years for the money that come from Washington, DC, to get to the intended beneficiary.

One of the biggest benefits of the amendment that Senator Padilla and I have offered is that this money is readily available and does not, again, as I said, add to the deficit or debt, but merely provides them flexibility, which means they will be able to put that money to use more quickly on infrastructure projects.

Again, this is not a mandate. This is an option. Any place that has new COVID expenses to cover can and should use the money they have for that purpose. There is no question about that. But we simply give leaders the option to spend relief funds on urgent infrastructure projects that may otherwise go unfunded.

Here is the other problem. I know that many of our State and local leaders are sitting on these huge amounts of financial resources that we have appropriated, and they are figuring out: Well, if we don't spend it on something, then the Federal Government is going to claw it back or it may not just qualify for the expenditures that are already authorized.

So they will be under a lot of pressure to spend it on things that may be simply operating expenses and may not provide the long-term economic benefit that an infrastructure project would.

That is another benefit of giving them this flexibility. It is that it will incentivize them to spend the money on the types of things we would hope they would spend the money on if they don't need it for

Madam President, since last March, State and local governments have received about a half trillion dollars in Federal funding to bolster their fight against COVID-19. Leaders in my State have used this funding to cover the mounting costs of expenses at the start of the pandemic. It enabled them to stand up testing, increase bed space for ICUs and hospitals, and provide grants to small businesses without the fear of cutting other critical services.

As time has gone on, the battle against this virus has shifted, and so have the needs of my State and our local communities. Many simply don't have the continued need or even opportunity under the guardrails Congress imposed to spend this money within the set timeline.

That is especially true in some of the rural parts of my State or places where COVID numbers are, thankfully, low. Qualifying pandemic- related expenses are few and far between in some of those places, as strange as that may sound here in Washington, DC.

I have heard from State and local leaders who are frustrated by the strict rules on the funding. They have needs, but somehow the limitations that Congress has put on their access to the money are stifling their ability to deal with priorities that they have at the local level.

They are able to use these dollars on some of the tough financial dealings of the pandemic, but not all. One of the greatest needs they have is to deal with infrastructure. When folks hunkered down at home to stop the spread of COVID-19, State and local transportation budgets took a big hit. As a result, many infrastructure projects ended up on the chopping block.

In 2020, States and cities across the country delayed or canceled transportation improvement projects totaling about $12 billion. Many of these projects are still in limbo. Without sufficient funding, there is no timeline when that planned construction might actually begin.

For months now, there has been a clear need to bridge the gap. Back in March, nearly three dozen organizations wrote to Treasury Secretary Yellen urging her to make transportation infrastructure an eligible expense. They said the pandemic had impacted every State and community differently, and they wanted and asked for flexibility. They said that flexibility will be critical to ensuring funds are used expeditiously and with maximum impact.

I have gotten the same sort of requests from the people I represent in Texas, so I drafted an amendment to this legislation to provide that flexibility. Thankfully, I found a partner in Senator Alex Padilla of California, and our bipartisan amendment, which will, I believe, when we vote on it, receive broad bipartisan support. I am hopeful we can vote on that amendment sometime later today.

This amendment puts decision-making power at the local level and gives these leaders more flexibility to invest in the most critical projects for their communities, whatever those might be. In some places, that may still mean pandemic-related expenses.

The Delta variant has thrown us a curve ball, to be sure, and is surging in some places, and leaders in those areas are going to continue to use this funding to bolster the fight against the virus.

But this change doesn't interfere with those plans in any way, because what Senator Padilla and I propose is to make that strictly an option--not a mandate, but an option--so leaders at the State and local level can decide what fits their particular need.

It simply gives States and localities that aren't facing a mountain of COVID-related expenses the ability to invest this funding in--you guessed it--infrastructure projects, something that the bill we are currently considering is designed to do.

But one of the things I have noticed since I have been in the Senate is, frequently, we will appropriate money, and it takes not just months, but sometimes years to get to the intended beneficiary. I know the Presiding Officer has seen with me the fact that we appropriated $46 billion to prevent evictions for people that can't pay their rent, and yet that money has simply not made its way to the intended beneficiaries in a timely and expeditious way. Hopefully, that will improve. But this is money that is available immediately to our local and State officials to use now.

This infrastructure bill, to the credit of the bipartisan infrastructure negotiating committee, I think, has some good, very positive elements to it. But the truth is, what we are doing in this bill probably will not flow quickly to local jurisdictions in our States, like the money that they already have but are handcuffed from using for infrastructure purposes.

Whether it is widening highways, constructing bridges, extending railways, or expanding access to broadband, the list of new qualifying expenses is a long one. As I said, there is simply no requirement that they spend a penny on infrastructure if they don't want to or if they think they need to hold more of this money that the Federal Government has appropriated in reserve. All we are doing is simply giving them the freedom to use these Federal dollars on these projects if that makes sense for these communities.

Senator Padilla and I have worked with our colleagues to make some changes that support a vast array of infrastructure projects. We added additional qualifying infrastructure projects to ensure unique, but no less important, needs in the various States are eligible.

The White House initially raised concerns about the amount of funding that we might authorize under our amendment, and worried it would take away from necessary COVID-19 expenses. Well, Senator Padilla and I have worked with the White House, and I believe we have come up with a good- faith resolution of their concerns and our interest in getting this money to be available.

Under our amendment, up to 30 percent of the unspent COVID-19 funds would be available to the States and local government for infrastructure projects. It is difficult to quantify exactly how much of the money will be spent on infrastructure projects because, as I said, the States and local governments are not required to spend a penny of that money on infrastructure.

But should they wish to do so, and should local conditions permit, this will open up tens of millions of dollars for infrastructure projects in communities across the country. This can help critical projects that were delayed by the pandemic get back on track and put this funding toward its intended purpose, the very purpose we are debating right now, to both alleviate the burden of the pandemic on cities and States, as well as to refurbish and expand our critical infrastructure, including broadband.

So this isn't just a win for our local communities; it is a win for taxpayers too.

Here is something that may be a little unexpected: The cost of this amendment is zero. It is nothing because the money has already been appropriated and already been scored on previous COVID-19-relief acts. All it does is it removes the handcuffs from the local jurisdictions and allows them to meet their needs based on their best judgment. So this does not increase the deficit and does not add to the debt.

This amendment has been endorsed by more than two dozen organizations representing a diverse set of stakeholders. The National Governors Association--which, as you know, is a bipartisan group of Governors-- has endorsed this amendment. The U.S. Conference of Mayors and a long list of organizations have thrown their support behind this commonsense change.

This will give communities in Texas and Nevada and all the other States the ability to use pandemic-relief funding when and where it is needed most.

They know the needs of their communities far better than we do sitting here in Washington, DC. And I hope this amendment will be adopted to give these leaders greater decision-making flexibility.

I want to thank Senators on both sides of the aisle who have worked with Senator Padilla and myself on this amendment. And, later today, I hope we will receive broad, bipartisan support for this amendment. And I anticipate we will, because I know the circumstances in my State dealing with my constituents is really no different when it comes to giving flexibility and access to those Federal COVID-19 dollars, that the story is probably largely the same in whatever State you represent.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I didn't come to the floor to speak on this matter, but listening to the comments of my friend from Illinois about the contributions made by immigrants to our country, I wholeheartedly agree with him about that.

Really, when I think about immigration, I think it is really sort of the secret sauce to American success. It is the notion that you can come from anywhere, with virtually nothing, and you can legally immigrate to the United States and you can begin to get one of those very difficult jobs working in the fields, working in a meatpacking plant, or someplace else and begin your climb toward the American dream.

That, to me, is one of the crown jewels of our country. It is what makes us different. You look at other countries around the world; they don't welcome immigrants. They shun immigrants, and their economies and their countries suffer for it.

Let me just say, I agree with the Senator from Illinois about the contribution of immigrants. I listened very carefully as a border State Senator. My State is 40 percent Hispanic. I am sure the Senator from Nevada has a large Hispanic population. They are part of us. They are part of our great Nation and make tremendous contributions.

The Hispanics in my State are patriots. They volunteer in disproportionate numbers to serve in the military. They work at jobs that are very difficult. They are very tight-knit families. They are people of faith. They believe in hard work and, most fundamentally, they believe in the American dream.

But I don't think it does any tribute to their contributions or their sacrifices to say that people can come to this country without complying with our laws.

I also join in the Senator's frustration at our inability to get anything substantially done in this space, but I don't think it is good enough for us to complain about how hard it is. We are all volunteers. What we have to do is do the hard work, and we have not done it since I have been here. We have not done the hard work to try to build that consensus in order to pass meaningful immigration reform, and we need to do that. It is on us. We can't blame somebody else. We are the ones responsible. We haven't done it, and we need to do it.

But I would just point out, and the Senator from Illinois knows this, that my State has a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. This is ground zero for the humanitarian crisis that is currently appearing at the border. The Biden administration reversed a lot of the policies of the previous administration without having an alternative plan in place, and it was interpreted as laying out the welcome mat for anybody and everybody who wanted to come to the United States. That is why we are seeing these unprecedented numbers, or at least numbers we haven't seen for 20 years, in people trying to stream across the border into the United States.

I know that there is a lot of debate about, well, should we have physical barriers at the border? The truth is, the experts, the Border Patrol, have told all of us that, yes, you have to have physical barriers in some hard-to-control places, but you also need technology, and you need boots on the ground because this is not just about people immigrating to the United States; this is about the drugs that killed 93,000 Americans last year alone, most of which come across the southern border--cocaine, meth, fentanyl, heroin, just to name a few. When we see the current crisis at the border because of this reversal of the previous administration's policies without any alternative plan in place, this is an open invitation to the cartels to take advantage of the circumstances.

What it means, as a practical matter, when so many people come across at the same time, which is what is happening now, including tens of thousands of unaccompanied children, the Border Patrol, which is the law enforcement officials who are given the mission of securing our border--they have to leave the frontline of the border to go change diapers and clean and feed these kids because there is simply not enough personnel there in order to handle this flood of humanity.

What happens when they leave the frontlines? Well, in one sector, the Border Patrol Chief told me 40 percent of their agents had to leave the frontlines, which then was a green light for the drug components, the drug smugglers, to bring the poison that killed 93,000 Americans in the United States last year alone across the border.

These criminal organizations are very sophisticated. They know exactly what they are doing. They know exactly how to exploit the vulnerabilities in our law, which is why they also have understood that if you flood tens of thousands--in 1 month alone, nearly 200,000--of people across the border, that you are going to overwhelm the system, and that if you coach the migrants to make a claim of credible fear of persecution, that you might just be put into our asylum system, which then has about 1.3, I think, million cases backlogged in our immigration courts, which means we are forced to give you a notice to appear at a future hearing so you can present your case in front of an immigration judge, and maybe, just maybe, you can make your case. As a practical matter, only about 10 percent of the people who do appear in front of an immigration judge are able to meet the legal criteria for asylum.

But here is how the cartels, how the transnational criminal organizations, have figured out how to exploit our

laws: Because we have to release people and give them a notice to appear because of the sheer volume, most of them don't show up for their court hearing. So they have succeeded because of the gaps in our law, not because of a lack of a physical barrier along the border. They are turning themselves in to the Border Patrol and making this claim of asylum because they know that they will more than likely succeed in making their way into the United States.

I don't care how many times the Vice President goes to Central America or talks about root causes of illegal immigration. I don't care how many times Director Mayorkas tells Cubans: Don't come to America because of the danger of coming overseas into our country. These organizations are smart. They are whispering in the ear of these migrants. They are saying: If you will pay us enough money, we will get you to America. And these migrants watch TV. They watch cable TV. They take phone calls and get emails from their friends and relatives in the United States. They know that this statement ``don't try to come to America'' is just completely inconsistent with what is happening on the ground.

So I don't think it does us any good to complain about how hard our job is or how many times we have failed to get the job done. What I am really concerned about right now is that the majority whip, who is also chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has basically told us he is going to give up on a bipartisan immigration reform bill, and they are going to try to jam this through on a purely party-line vote in this reconciliation bill, otherwise known as the reckless tax-and-spending spree.

Now, I don't expect that the Parliamentarian will allow them to do that under the rules of the Senate. This would completely circumvent the rules of the Senate, which require, on matters of substantive legislation, 60 votes to close off debate, the so-called filibuster rule.

But I couldn't resist responding to the majority whip's--the Senator from Illinois--statements about how hard our job is. I don't think it does us much good to come here and say: This is really hard. This is really hard.

Our constituents expect us to fix it, and we know how to do it if we will just do our job

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, as we all know by now, a bipartisan group of Senators worked with the White House over the last several weeks to negotiate a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, and I know a lot of hard work went into it, a lot of late nights, and I want to thank all of our colleagues who have made a positive contribution in this debate and discussion. It is particularly important at this time, I believe, that we do these things on a bipartisan basis, if we can.

After much anticipation, we finally received the text Sunday night, and a lot of what we expected to see, we saw, like funding for roads, bridges, ports, waterways, airports, and broadband. But what we didn't see were adequate

pay-fors for the bill. For example, we learned after the bill was announced that it would be essentially a supplemental to the current infrastructure bill, which would require another $118 billion in general revenue to fill the gap left because of the inadequacy of the highway trust fund funding.

Now, we have all known that that is a problem. We had to use general revenue the last time we did a highway bill. But that hasn't really been part of the discussion, and I think, once people begin to see an additional $118 billion in borrowed money in order to pass this bill, it causes significant concern.

I guess the other part of it is that this bill seems to be moving at warp speed. Under normal circumstances, an infrastructure bill would go through a long and arduous subcommittee process. And I know that the Environment and Public Works Committee has passed a highway bill reauthorization twice unanimously, once under Democratic leadership and once under Republican leadership. So that is a positive sign. But this is really a huge amalgam of legislation that, frankly, only about 20 percent of the Senate is intimately familiar with.

Ordinarily, in a committee, both sides would debate the bill in hearings, markups, evaluate the cost, and offer amendments before we get to this process, but now we know that has not happened. Frankly, I think that is unfortunate because I think our committees are not operating the way they should, which, in turn, I think helps us produce a better, more thoughtful product.

We simply skipped the normal steps that would allow Members to raise concerns about the bill long before we got here and offer changes to improve it. So, as I have said before and I know others have said as well, I hope the majority leader will offer ample time and opportunities for Members on both sides of the aisle to debate and amend this legislation. A robust amendment process is essential.

Over the last few days, I have been working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to identify new pay-fors that could be adopted as amendments. We have come up with some, I think, promising ideas, and I hope these ideas can receive a vote on the Senate floor this week.

For example, I have worked with Senator Padilla, the Senator from California, to offer one bipartisan amendment to fund infrastructure projects in communities across the country without increasing the debt. Our amendment would simply give the State and local governments the flexibility to use unspent COVID-19 funding on infrastructure projects. It would eliminate the sunset on the use of those funds, and it would take the guardrails off that say you can only use that money for COVID- 19 because, to be honest, the States and counties and cities have more money than they know what to do with, at least constructively. I think we all would have an interest in making sure that money is spent well on long-term projects.

What I just said is not necessarily a criticism of the bills that we passed together on a bipartisan basis. We were in the midst of a pandemic, and we were all operating in an emergency situation, trying to do the best we could. But we didn't know how long this virus would last, how long it would take to get a vaccine, and how long the negative impact on our economy would last.

Frankly, we overshot the mark, I think, in some aspects of the bill, thus leading to the surplus of funds at many of our State and local governments.

Right now, there are limits on how that money could be spent. Qualifying expenses include things related directly to the pandemic, like COVID-19 testing sites, vaccines, PSAs, and additional bed space for hospitals.

But this funding can't currently be used for expenses unrelated to the pandemic or items that were previously included in a budget. They must be new, pandemic-related expenses.

As I said, in theory, at the time we did this, it made a lot of sense. After all, this funding was meant to bolster the fight against COVID-19 in communities across our country.

But not every community and not every State has the need for these types of projects. In many places, the most urgent needs aren't related to the pandemic, but, rather, the failing infrastructure.

The pandemic interrupted infrastructure improvements across the country and forced many officials to put these projects on the back burner. Repairs, maintenance, and construction projects were put on hold until there was enough funding to get things back on track.

I have heard from State and local leaders in my State who are frustrated by the lack of flexibility--by the handcuffs, frankly--on their use of the Federal funding they have already received. They want the option, not the mandate. They want the option to use this money when and where it is needed most, but right now, as I said, their hands are tied.

Many States and localities have relief funds on hand but no necessary, qualifying expenses. They have to look at this big balance in their accounts knowing they won't be able to spend it on the greatest needs of their communities. Frankly, they are frustrated, because I heard from them.

That is especially the case in rural America. In places where COVID- 19 numbers are low, leaders don't have the need or the opportunity to spend this money within the set timeline for the purposes that Congress has dictated. They don't need the full range of pandemic-related resources that might be necessary in other high-density urban areas with higher case counts.

The amendment Senator Padilla and I have offered would give leaders in rural areas alike the option of spending the funding on necessary infrastructure projects. This does not touch the negotiation between the White House and so-called G-20, the bipartisan group of Senators who came up with the substitute bill, which is the base bill that we are now debating. This would be in addition to it.

And, frankly, this would be the most efficient way to fund many infrastructure projects in our States and communities because, as we know, once Congress appropriates money, frequently, it takes years before that money makes its way to the need. Well, this could mean widening a highway, making safety improvements on a bridge, expanding broadband access. Urban areas could even use these funds for public transit improvement systems.

State and local leaders know the needs of their communities best, and they should have the flexibility to spend this money where it is needed most. The key here is flexibility.

Here is the other benefit. It doesn't cost another dime. This is money that we have already spent and already sent to the States, so the score is a big zero.

How many times do we have the opportunity here to do something big and important that doesn't run up the debt or deficit or cost us a lot more money?

So the key here is flexibility. Our amendment doesn't place a requirement or mandate on State and local governments to spend this funding on anything.

Any place that has new COVID expenses to cover can and should use this funding for that purpose, no questions asked. This simply gives leaders at the local and State level the option to spend those relief funds on urgent infrastructure projects that might otherwise go unfunded or that might not be funded for years to come.

I still remember President Obama, at one point after the Great Recession in 2008 and the recovery, when he talked about shovel-ready projects. He said: Well, I guess shovel-ready doesn't really mean shovel-ready.

The truth is, we have seen it time and time again. Congress appropriates money to State and local governments, and it literally takes years before the money gets to the intended target. This short- circuits that project because the States and local governments already have that money and they can spend it for this purpose if we will pass this amendment.

I am not alone in thinking this is a good idea. Back in March, nearly three dozen organizations wrote a letter to Secretary Yellen urging her to make transportation infrastructure an eligible expense. They talked about the impact of COVID-19 on transportation revenues and noted that, last year, 18 States and 24 localities announced delays or cancellations of transportation improvement projects totaling more than $12 billion.

These same three dozen organizations noted the pandemic has impacted every State and community differently, thus the key flexibility. They

said flexibility will be critical to ensuring funds are used expeditiously and with maximum impact. That is really what we are talking about here.

Secretary Biden's own Transportation Secretary suggested as much. In testimony before Congress, Secretary Buttigieg said the American Rescue Plan ``has some flexibility in it'' that he thinks could be used ``to support road budgets that have been impacted.''

States and cities shouldn't just be able to spend this money. They should be able to invest it in projects and resources our communities need the most.

This is simply a commonsense change both sides should be able to get behind. It ensures money that has already gone out the door will be used before it expires. It puts decision-making at the local level and gives leaders more flexibility to decide how to use this Federal funding on their most urgent needs; and it does so, as I said, without increasing the national deficit at all.

This amendment has earned the support of a broad range of organizations across the country, and I am proud to have worked with Senator Padilla to craft this amendment in a way that both sides can get behind it. In the coming days, I hope this will be one of many amendments that will receive a vote on the Senate floor, perhaps as early as today.

We have to ensure infrastructure investments are made fairly and paid for reasonably, and a robust amendment process is the only way to get there.

I would just add in closing, some of my colleagues have said that they support this amendment, but they would be inclined to vote against it because they feel like this somehow violates the agreement that the bipartisan negotiating group had with the White House. But as I described it, it doesn't touch--it does not touch that underlying substitute bill.

What it does is it unleashes these funds in States like Connecticut, Michigan, West Virginia, Texas. And it lets our State and local leaders figure out, if they can't use these funds, if they don't need these funds for COVID-19, how they can use them in a way that will have the biggest, most significant economic impact on the infrastructure in their States.

I hope my colleagues who somehow believe that they have sworn a blood oath with the White House not to support any amendments that change the underlying substitute--I don't know why we are voting on amendments, unless it is to change the underlying substitute because that is our Constitutional function. It is somehow a parallel universe in which the White House--a different branch of government--is telling the Senate what amendments we can and cannot pass.

As we all know, that is not the way the Constitution is written. The Constitution said it is our prerogative, as Senators representing our States, to vote on policies that we think are best for our States and for the country.

Yes, the President has an important role, but his role is to veto it if he doesn't like it, not rewrite it, not to tell us what amendments we can vote on or not vote on. That is a perversion of the constitutional system.

I think, for matters of institutional integrity and pride, Senators would be very jealous about guarding their authorities under the Constitution rather than delegating these to the administration.

I expect this is going to be a long road. We have already heard Speaker Pelosi say she is not going to pass this bill once the Senate passes it until she has a chance to pass the $3.5 trillion-plus reconciliation bill at the same time. This is going to be a very bumpy process.

But the idea that we cut off access that our States and local government have to hundreds of billions of dollars of unused funds to do, in their discretion, what they think needs to be done--not a mandate, but, rather, a permission to do so. To turn down this opportunity to get this money where it is needed most in these big impact infrastructure projects makes no sense to me. I would encourage all our colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam President, in a State as big as mine, reliable transportation infrastructure is absolutely essential. We are home to both the largest network of highways, as well as the largest number of bridges in the country. We are also a major hub for imports and exports both along the gulf coast and the southern border.

As we continue to welcome more new Texans every day, the strain on our infrastructure is growing. It takes a lot of planning and maintenance to get all 29 million Texans, our visitors, and crucial cargo around the State safely and efficiently. When you add in broadband, airports, levees, waterways, it is easy to see how big an undertaking this entire process is.

I continue to hear from my constituents back home, like I am sure we all do, about the need for Federal funding to help repair, maintain, and expand infrastructure across our States. But we just can't keep adding expenses to the taxpayers' credit card. We have to figure out how to pay for it.

Earlier this year, President Biden floated his idea for an absolutely massive infrastructure bill totaling $2.6 trillion. It included a broad range of controversial and, frankly, overpriced programs, all funded by massive tax hikes on the American taxpayer.

The good news is, that is not the bill we are considering today. A bipartisan group of our colleagues worked with the White House to find common ground and get a bill to the floor with support from both sides. The 2,700-page text was just released last night, and I know, like everybody else, I am still in the process with my staff of evaluating just how it will impact my State and our Nation.

Our colleagues who negotiated and drafted this legislation put in a lot of long hours and hard work to reach an agreement. I commend them for their efforts.

I am eager to see a score from the Congressional Budget Office to provide a better understanding of the true cost of this legislation. But even the proponents who negotiated this deal concede that, at least before the $118 billion transfer from the general revenue fund last night, that even then, only about half of it was paid for.

I believe there, so far, have been some missed opportunities, one being reforms to the highway trust fund itself. For years, the highway trust fund has faced major shortfalls and, to a serious degree, Texans have footed the bill for those shortfalls because we are one of the States that receive less than we contribute. For every dollar we put in the highway trust fund, only 95 cents comes back to my State. That is not the same treatment of every State. In fact, we received the lowest rate of return than any other State.

I don't think it is a stretch to say it is unfair that Texans subsidize infrastructure projects in every other State, but that is only part of the issue here. The highway trust fund has been operating in the red for more than a decade. The current state of the highway trust fund is unsustainable, and unless something changes, we are going to be in dire straits--even more dire straits in just a few years.

The importance of the highway trust fund is that we have always believed in a user fee model when it comes to infrastructure. The people who use it are the ones to pay to maintain it and expand it. But rather than make reforms to the formula to make the fund solvent, this bill throws more borrowed money at the problem.

As I said, just this morning, I learned that another $118 billion was proposed to be transferred to the highway trust fund with no reforms to help put it back on sound financial footing. This is quite a step away from the user fee model where those who use the infrastructure are the ones who pay for it. This is a transfer from general revenue, from the taxpayer, into the highway trust fund. This inclusion was a big surprise to me, and in all the conversations we have had about this legislation over the past several weeks, I didn't hear a word about a highway trust fund bailout.

The massive bill, as I said, was dropped last night, and we are still trying to comb through the 2,700 pages of text, which, at this point, appears to be full of surprises, and I will just mention one of them.

This bill should not be rushed through the Senate without providing all Members a chance to read it, to understand it, and offer their suggestions to improve it. I have been working with some of our colleagues on amendments to this legislation to provide legitimate pay- fors. Since this bill didn't go through the regular committee process but was really cobbled together by a negotiation--again, in a bipartisan fashion that I commend for their efforts--but it makes it all the more important that since this is the first time that many of us have seen the entire 2,700-page bill, that it be subject to an open amendment process.

This legislation will have impact on every State in the country, and every Member of the Senate should have the opportunity to weigh in and offer changes. Members of the bipartisan group have committed to a process that allows Senators on both sides to offer changes to this bill, and in the days ahead, I hope the majority leader will allow that to happen, and we will have a robust amendment process.

Gun Violence

Madam President, on another matter, my State is no stranger to tragedy. In recent years, we have experienced hurricanes, tornadoes, a crippling winter freeze, and other natural disasters that have tested our resiliency. Sadly, too, some of our communities have experienced mass shootings.

Tomorrow, Texans will mark a solemn anniversary: 2 years since a gunman stormed into a Walmart in El Paso, TX, and opened fire. Twenty- three people died; dozens were injured; and the lives of countless El Pasoans were forever changed. My friend, the former mayor, Dee Margo, said at the time:

Hate will not overcome love. Hate will not define who we

are.

This shooting was, undoubtedly, hate in its purest form. The shooter was a White supremacist who carried out an act that could only be described as domestic terrorism. Our Hispanic neighbors and friends were purposely targeted, and both Texans and Mexicans were killed by this wicked individual.

In the face of this pure evil, El Pasoans responded with love. Off- duty surgeons and doctors rushed to the hospital to save as many lives as they could. El Pasoans were comforted by their faith leaders, like Father Marquez, who stayed up all night with 17 families and sat beside them as they were told their loved ones had not made it. And hundreds of Texans lined up to give blood. I was proud to be one of those 3,000 donations at the Vitalant centers in El Paso and Las Cruces.

A young El Pasoan, Ruben Martinez, was just in sixth grade when this mass

shooting took place. In the days that followed, he created the El Paso Challenge, where he and his mom performed 23 random acts of kindness in honor of the 23 victims. Two years later, they are still keeping up that tradition and recently gave out roses at San Jacinto Plaza to remind people to spread love and kindness.

El Paso, a community that saw the face of evil, unequivocally chose love, and I am grateful to Texans like Ruben who have continued to make the choice, day after day, to honor the lives of the 23 whom we lost.

As we remember the lives that were lost just 2 years ago and the families and the victims that many of us comforted in the hospitals in the aftermath of this, we are also--we also carry the painful reminder that justice has not yet been served. Last week, the Federal hearing for the accused shooter was postponed until November, and the State's case continues to await a trial date due to delays stemming from COVID's impact on our court system.

My heart is with the families and friends looking for closure who must now deal with this additional delay in justice being served.

I know I speak for all Texans when I say that the 2-year anniversary approaches tomorrow; that, as it approaches, we all stand in solidarity with El Pasoans and remember the enduring strength and spirit of this vibrant community.

I yield the floor