Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in all honesty, sometimes it is hard to figure out exactly what the policy goals are that the Biden administration is striving to achieve.

Take the so-called COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law just last month. Despite the fact that every pandemic relief bill that became law last year received broad bipartisan support, this bill did not. In fact, not a single Republican voted for it.

The Biden administration is preparing to rinse and repeat this strategy with a new misleading label, calling it infrastructure. But the reason why Republicans didn't vote for the COVID-19 relief bill, while we did for every single one last year, was because only about 10 percent of the bill was actually dedicated to the goal stated by the proponents. Only about 10 percent of the massive $1.9 trillion bill was related to the pandemic, and less than 1 percent was related to our vaccination efforts.

As I said, now the administration is preparing a rinse-and-repeat strategy with a new misleading label: ``infrastructure.''

If one of the surveyed questions on ``Family Feud'' was, ``Name something that is considered infrastructure,'' I would bet the top two answers would be roads and bridges. The other popular answers would probably include: airports, railroads, ports, tunnels, and waterways. But our Democratic colleagues are broadening that definition in ways that really are not accurate.

Just as they tried to brand things like environmental justice funding as ``pandemic relief,'' they are now getting very creative with the definition of ``infrastructure.'' In fact, the President's infrastructure plan has a lot in common with his COVID-19 relief plan.

First of all is the pricetag. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates this plan would cost $2.65 trillion. That is trillion with a ``t.''

For reference, the last major infrastructure bill that became law in 2015 was widely described as the largest package in more than a decade. That overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation totaled just over $300 billion, one-ninth of the cost of this new plan.

But there is another similarity between these two massive proposals, the long list of unrelated progressive or liberal policy priorities. Only about 5 percent of the spending in this colossal infrastructure plan is directed toward roads and bridges.

So where does the rest of the money go? For starters, this proposal would provide $174 billion for electric vehicle chargers, far more money than would go toward the roads and bridges Americans drive on every day. There are roughly 280 million cars on the road, the vast majority of which are internal combustion engine driven. Yet rather than provide for the vast majority of travelers, this would favor $174 billion for electric vehicle chargers.

This proposal includes a whopping $400 billion to support caregiving for elderly and disabled Americans. There is no question about the importance of quality care for these individuals, but this is no definition of infrastructure. So this is really another Trojan horse: calling it one thing, making it look like one thing, and doing something entirely unrelated and different.

There is $25 billion for government childcare programs; $10 billion to create a Civilian Climate Corp--whatever that is. Then there is the massive funding for sustainable buildings and private homes.

This proposal would provide $213 billion to build or retrofit more than 2 million affordable and sustainable places to live. This is really just the Green New Deal 2.0. And right on cue come the unrealistic targets to lower emissions.

Rather than research and development or innovation, this relies on taxation and regulation, an unrealistic goal. This infrastructure plan calls for 100 percent of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2035.

To be clear, we are nowhere close to that target now. And the effort to get there would have a devastating impact on States all across the country, including mine.

Last year, renewables accounted for only 20 percent of our total electricity generation. In Texas, we generate more electricity from wind turbines than any other source in the country, but yet last year alone, renewables of all kinds--solar, wind, biomass, you name it-- accounted for less than 20 percent. Natural gas accounts for more than double that.

We experienced what happens when these unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky goals are set. We had a 120-year weather event, the so-called polar vortex in Texas. It is a long, sustained period of subzero freezing that may be more common in Massachusetts than it is in Texas. As a matter of fact, like I said, it is a 120-year weather event. What we found out was the severe weather affected wind turbines, which effectively froze up snow- and ice-covered solar panels, and even natural gas went offline because the electric pumps that compress the natural gas to put it into the pipelines failed as well. About the only reliable fuel source during that period of time was nuclear power, which represents a fraction of our total energy needs.

I am a proud supporter of renewable energy sources as well as a broader effort to reduce emissions. There is no question about this. Just last week, I joined folks from the North American Development Bank and their public and private partners to announce a new solar farm in Webb County, Laredo, TX. But there is a big difference between supporting renewables and what the Biden administration is trying to do with this unrealistic and pie-in-the-sky target.

At the start of the pandemic, we got a small taste of the real-world impact of a shift from oil and gas and what that would look like. When the pandemic hit, the need for Texas's greatest natural resource plummeted. Demand dropped precipitously as people stayed home and quit driving. With fewer cars and planes on the road and in the sky, oil and gas producers were left with a high supply and low demand. And that is when the layoffs began.

Last fall, a report by Deloitte found that between March and August of 2020, about 107,000 oil and gas workers were laid off. To be clear, this doesn't include the countless workers who had their pay cut or were temporarily furloughed.

If the Biden administration enacts aggressive deadlines to eradicate our most prevalent and abundant energy sources, and the jobs they create, a lot of Texas energy workers and their families would be left high and dry.

But the bad news doesn't stop there. The list of unrelated and downright damaging provisions in this bill is a long one. The big question with any legislation, especially something of this size, is, How are you going to pay for it?

In the past, the vast majority of infrastructure funding has come from the highway trust fund, but for years it has faced serious shortfalls. To a serious degree, Texans have footed the bill for those shortfalls. In fact, we are one of the few States that receives less than

it contributes to the highway trust fund, a so-called donor State.

But rather than address the solvency of the trust fund and the inequitable burden put on donor States before the authorization expires at the end of September, the administration has completely ignored the issue altogether.

The President's infrastructure plan doesn't even draw on the highway trust fund. So in order to pay for the sweeping liberal wish list, President Biden has proposed the largest set of tax hikes in more than half a century. By increasing the business tax rate from 21 to 28 percent, we would see an increase in revenue in the short term but serious long-term economic harm.

The tax burden on American companies would be greater than that of our biggest trading partner, as well as our competitors, and would have far-reaching consequences on our competitiveness and our economy and jobs for hard-working American families

After all, we know the cost of these tax hikes won't be reflected in lower earnings for CEOs. The brunt would be borne by consumers who pay higher prices, workers who earn lower wages, and, let's not forget, those whose jobs would disappear entirely.

A study by the National Association of Manufacturers found this proposal would put 1 million people out of work in the United States in the next 2 years--a million people out of work. Just as we are beginning to come out of the pandemic, having been vaccinated and taking care for both our health and the health of others and now opening up our economy, this would be the reward for the American people: 1 million Americans out of work as a result of this misguided policy.

This legislation is not about improving America's roads and bridges; it is another partisan wish list under the guise of something that has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. Despite what some people think, the American people, I believe, are smart enough to see through this bill for what it is, an unaffordable, unwanted liberal wish list.

The Federal deficit is at its highest since World War II. This is not a time to go on another spending spree, using borrowed money from future generations. This is the time to craft smart policies that achieve the needs of our country without driving the next generation deeper and deeper into debt.

There is no question that America's roads and bridges--our real infrastructure--need an investment from the Federal Government, but we can update that infrastructure for far less than $2.65 trillion.

Last Congress, the Environment and Public Works Committee developed a truly bipartisan example of an infrastructure bill. It included provisions for rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges to improve road safety, protect the environment, and grow the economy.

The bill was so popular, in fact, that it passed the committee unanimously. And what was the pricetag on that bill? Just over 10 percent of the cost of the President's current proposal. It would have authorized $287 billion over 5 years. That is $100 billion less than what Democrats proposed spending on caregiving alone.

A bipartisan bill to rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges is possible. We have done it before, and we can do it again. But our Democratic colleagues are going to have trouble getting not only Republicans but many Members of their own party on board if they continue to push this sort of unrealistic, economy-harming sort of plan.

I am sure it comes as no surprise that putting Americans out of work while driving up the deficit and hurting our global competitiveness are wildly unpopular. Even smoke and mirrors can't conceal the impact of this so-called infrastructure bill.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back on both sides on the Sherman nomination.

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

Madam President, I was grateful for the opportunity, as I am sure we all were, to be back home for the last 2 weeks for the State work period and to talk to our constituents. Some of my conversations-- and I suspect I am not alone--some of these conversations were virtual. But most of us are glad to get back to whatever the next normal is and have more and more human interaction rather than the isolation and, frankly, some of the anxiety that comes along with being kept apart. We are social animals, we human beings, and we thrive on and we, I believe, need that kind of interaction. But so far this year, most of it has been virtual.

I did have a chance to speak to the Texas Hispanic Chamber members and the members of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber as part of their annual legislative summit. Like many of the folks who do fly-ins at least once a year, we have had to forgo that, so this was a virtual meeting. But I did get a chance to hear from many of the members and particularly their board members on the importance of our response to the pandemic and the progress they have in turn been able to make through things like the Paycheck Protection Program.

I also was able to join friends from Webb County--that is Laredo, TX--the North American Development Bank and their private partners, to announce a $216 million investment in a new solar farm, which they are very excited about.

I was glad to be able to visit with a number of Texans in person, with all of the appropriate safety precautions we have all learned so well.

I was able to kick off National Volunteer Month at the San Antonio Food Bank with a number of incredible nonprofits and people with big hearts who are volunteering even amidst the--hopefully the waning days of this pandemic, at the food bank. I hope Texans and folks all across the country will continue to find ways to support one another by volunteering with local nonprofits this month and into the future.

I also was able to meet with venue owners and operators at Antone's in Austin, which is the live music capital of the world, on the day before applications opened for the U.S. Small Business Administration shuttered venue operators grant. This grant program was established through the Save Our Stages Act, which Senator Klobuchar and I introduced and which was signed into law as part of the December relief bill. These small venues were excluded from the Paycheck Protection Program and, of course, were among the first to close and will be among the last to open. But what we did in the Save Our Stages Act will go a long way to ensure that the marquees at our most beloved live entertainment venues can shine bright once again, and I am eager for the funds to reach Texas venues.

Then, in Dallas, I joined my friend Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson to announce bipartisan legislation we are introducing in response to the deadly winter storm that hit Texas last February. This legislation will help build resilience in our electrical infrastructure throughout the country and will help ensure we are better prepared for whatever extreme weather Mother Nature sends our way.

It was great, as I said, to visit with folks in person again, and I am glad to see a gradual return to our new normal, as more and more Americans are vaccinated.

Even though the issues I was discussing throughout my State were different, one common theme that I brought up everywhere I went was to continue to encourage Texans to get vaccinated. So far, 9 million of us have received at least 1 dose of the vaccine, and 5.6 million Texans are fully vaccinated. Obviously we are not out of the woods yet, but Americans have every reason to be optimistic about the headway made in the fight against COVID-19.

Madam President, as we all know, over the last year, COVID-19 has taken center stage as the No. 1 public health crisis facing our Nation. No community has been spared from the devastation caused by this virus, which has claimed more than 540,000 American lives.

But beneath the surface, the problems we were facing before the pandemic still exist, and, in many cases, they are getting worse. A year of stress, isolation, and loss has taken a serious toll on America's mental health and has led to increasing rates of anxiety and depression.

These same factors have led to an increase in domestic violence as families have spent more time at home, often while battling the stress of job losses, financial difficulties, and virtual learning.

And, of course, there is the opioid epidemic, which continues to destroy communities across our country.

In 2019, there were more than 70,000 overdose deaths in America-- 70,000. We are still waiting on the complete figures for 2020, but preliminary data shows that things are trending in the wrong direction. From June 2019 to May of 2020, more than 81,000 Americans have died from overdoses.

We know a significant portion of those deaths involve heroin--roughly 20 percent of those who overdosed in 2019. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency's ``National Drug Threat Assessment,'' the vast majority of that heroin comes from Mexico, a staggering 92 percent.

As we have discussed the crisis at the border, I have talked about ways the surge of unaccompanied children affects Customs and Border Protection's ability to carry out its other missions, including stopping the flow of these illegal drugs. Time spent processing and caring for children means less time on the frontlines catching or deterring the cartels from moving their poison across the border into the United States.

A Bloomberg report last year brought another aspect of this epidemic to light: the fact that chemicals made in the United States by U.S. companies were key ingredients in the manufacturing of heroin in Mexico. One of those companies is Avantor, a Fortune 500 company that supplies chemicals and lab materials and services across a number of industries. Avantor produces millions of products, including everything from medical masks to high-quality chemicals for pharmaceuticals, to kits for science labs in schools. But the focus here is on one particular chemical--acetic anhydride.

This is an 18-liter jug of acetic anhydride, and you can see Avantor's name on the label. Avantor sells this through a subsidiary known as J.T. Baker into Mexico. Now, there are legitimate uses for acetic anhydride. It is used to make cigarette filters and chemicals used for photographic films, but this wasn't a photo taken in a chemical lab or a manufacturing plant here in the United States. This was taken by a Bloomberg reporter in Mexico who was able to purchase this chemical online, no questions asked. This should have never happened. Why? Because acetic anhydride is a highly regulated chemical, at least in the United States and, actually, around the world. Some companies even bar the importation of acetic anhydride because of its use in manufacturing illegal drugs.

But the reason it is regulated is it is a precursor in the production of heroin. That is why many countries ban the importation outright. Without this chemical, it is virtually impossible to transform opium from a poppy seed into the more lethal drug of heroin.

Acetic anhydride, as I said, is one of the most tightly controlled chemicals worldwide and has been for some time. The International Narcotics Control Board has been sounding the alarm on this dangerous chemical since the

2000s. In fact, its annual report has described horrific examples of the dangerous precursor chemical being diverted from legitimate uses to illegitimate uses, like making heroin.

But the fact is, Mexico did not sign on to the International Narcotics Board protocol for this dangerous chemical until 2018, and even then, the enforcement, oversight, and control of this precursor was lax, at best. Even now, given the controls the cartels exert over large swaths of Mexico, I have no confidence that any controls on this chemical are effective in stopping illicit uses in that country.

The Bloomberg investigation brought to light how easy it was for the cartels to get hold of this chemical. The reporters were able to purchase this 18-liter jug online or at a medical supply store. It didn't take any special requirements. You can imagine how easy it was for the cartels to get their hands on this chemical.

While the controls, oversight, and enforcement of this chemical are much tighter in the United States and have been for years, it presents a constant challenge when Mexico does not have the same standards and enforcement.

It presents an additional hurdle for the safety of our communities when U.S. companies, like Avantor, avail themselves of foreign subsidiaries to create and manufacture the precursor chemical in a cartel's own backyard, thereby facilitating the manufacture and sale of the deadly drug known as heroin.

Of course, the winners in all of this are the cartels, in addition to their criminal network of smugglers, who move the drug across our border. The losers are our communities here in the United States and our loved ones who have been tragically affected by the opioid epidemic.

This is an open-air drug lab in Sinaloa State, the home of El Chapo's drug empire. Cartels can use this single jug of 18 liters of chemical to make heroin in this drug lab that is concealed in a rural part of Mexico. They can make out of that one jug about 80 pounds, or 90,000 hits, of heroin out of one jug. Of course, one hit is enough to destroy a life, but think of the pain that one 18-liter jug can inflict on an entire community, and Avantor knows that these jugs in this size can be easily concealed in something like the trunk of a car.

One container of this chemical costs $324. The street value of the heroin that it will yield is at least $3.6 million. One jug at $324 can produce $3.6 million worth of street value in heroin. If this doesn't make your blood boil, you are not paying attention. After all, it is simply impossible to believe that Avantor, which is a Fortune 500 company that is publicly traded here in America, was selling large quantities of this chemical--banned in many countries of the world because of its use in illegal drug manufacturing--and had no idea that it was being used for illicit purposes in Mexico. I don't think anybody would believe they didn't know.

Bloomberg reports that this has been going on for at least the last 10 years, when photos like this surfaced of the J.T. Baker line of product showing up in drug busts by the Mexican authorities.

Unfortunately, the bad news doesn't stop there. The nominee for the third highest ranking position at the Department of Justice has profited to the tune of millions of dollars from Avantor stock. Vanita Gupta has been nominated to serve as the Associate Attorney General, and she is a very large shareholder in this publicly traded company. She owns millions of dollars of Avantor stock, parked in her own accounts and in the various trusts she has identified in her financial disclosures. This isn't just a blind investment in a mutual fund; this is the family business. Ms. Gupta's father is Avantor's chairman of the board.

Following Ms. Gupta's confirmation hearing in the Judiciary Committee, Senators submitted questions for the record. One question was submitted by Senator Grassley, the ranking member. He asked Ms. Gupta if she were aware that Avantor was producing and selling chemical precursors used in the illegal heroin trade in Mexico.

She said:

I am aware of the allegations.

The next question from Senator Grassley was about her financial holdings. Since she owns upwards of $55 million in Avantor stock, he asked if she had profited financially from this chemical trade of acetic anhydride by Avantor in Mexico.

Ms. Gupta said:

As a shareholder with no role in Avantor, I am not able to

say whether and how much I have profited from the various

parts of Avantor's business.

I generally believe witnesses who testify under oath at Judiciary Committee hearings if there is no reason not to believe them, but it pains me to say that Ms. Gupta had already established a clear pattern of deception or of flat-out lying during her confirmation process.

Ms. Gupta wrote an op-ed piece in the HuffPost on November 4, 2012. At that time, she said that States should decriminalize the possession of all drugs--not just marijuana but all drugs--for personal use.

In the article, she said:

States should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs,

particularly marijuana, and for small amounts of other drugs.

That is a quotation. You can see that here. That would include decriminalizing fentanyl, methamphetamine, and other highly addictive, deadly drugs, including, of course, heroin.

Well, that wasn't her answer at her confirmation hearing. When asked whether she advocates for the decriminalization of all drugs, she didn't mince words.

She said:

No, Senator. I do not.

Now, I understand that it is natural for people to change their minds, especially in light of new information or new experiences. In Ms. Gupta's case, she noted that her experience at the Department of Justice and with addiction in her own family had led her to evolve her position on these issues.

Yet, in responding to Senator Grassley's written questions, she wrote:

I have never advocated for the decriminalization of all

drugs, and I do not support the decriminalization of all

drugs.

That is demonstrably false. It is not true. She obviously held the view and felt so strongly about it at the time that she penned an op-ed piece in a national publication to advocate for the decriminalization of all drugs.

When a person has been nominated for a leadership position at the Department of Justice, that person has a duty to be honest and forthright. If you have learned any new information and have changed your mind, that is fine, but you can't flat-out mislead about not having held beliefs that you clearly held in the past, especially when those beliefs could interfere with your ability to do the very job for which you have been nominated.

It is not just with decriminalization that Ms. Gupta has misled the Judiciary Committee. As to qualified immunity, defunding the police, and the death penalty, Ms. Gupta has offered misleading statements on each of these issues. Policy differences, I can accept, but a lack of candor is disqualifying, especially for th Office of the Associate Attorney General.

So when Ms. Gupta said she was unaware that Avantor was profiting or that she was profiting from the illicit manufacturing of heroin in Mexico, I do not find that credible. It is just another example of saying whatever you need to say to get confirmed by the Senate.

The Department of Justice is the highest law enforcement Agency in the country, and Ms. Gupta has been nominated to serve as third in command. If confirmed, she will oversee the Civil Division, which will make major decisions about who will be investigated, who will be charged, and who will face punishment. Some of those potential targets include opioid companies, drug manufacturers, or perhaps even companies that are diverting precursor chemicals to the cartels. If you look at the work at the moment of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, you will see a number of civil actions already related to the diversion of opioids and companies involved in illegal schemes. What does this say about her ability to supervise those kinds of cases?

The Department requires professional detachment from even the appearance of impropriety, and this conflict of interest of Ms. Gupta's goes far beyond simple appearance. Ms. Gupta has financially benefited from the sale of this chemical to cartels in Mexico.

She has financially benefited whether she knew it at the time or not, but she won't even admit it. As a result, any case that has a nexus to drugs brought by the Department of Justice while she is at the helm will have a giant cloud cast over it.

Finally, what I find most troubling, in addition to her lack of candor, is that Ms. Gupta has shown absolutely no remorse for the harm done by Avantor in facilitating the manufacture and sale of heroin here in the United States. I estimate that, in the last 10 years, more than 100,000 Americans have died of drug overdoses associated with heroin. So I cannot support the nomination of Ms. Gupta to serve as Associate Attorney General, and I urge all of my colleagues to oppose her nomination as well.

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

Mr. President, I am an unabashed optimist. I am a glass- half-full not a glass-half-empty kind of guy, and I tell my staff that I am like the little boy who goes down on Christmas morning and looks under the Christmas tree and finds a pile of manure and wonders where my pony is. That is how much of an optimist I am.

So I am optimistic about our progress made in the war against COVID- 19 after this long year that we have all endured. So far, a quarter of Americans over the age of 18 have received at least one dose of the vaccine. More than two-thirds of people over 65 have gotten their first shot. In my State, they have recently said everybody 50 and up can get a shot. Now, very soon, any adult person over the age of 16 will be eligible to get the vaccine. That translates into good news across the board. New cases, deaths, and hospitalizations are all declining. Over the last week, the 7-day positivity rate in Texas dropped to the lowest point since last May.

While we continue to follow the public health guidelines to slow the spread of the virus, it is clear we are moving closer and closer to an eventual end of this pandemic, and there are a million reasons to be optimistic.

Despite the narrative pushed by some, all of this hope isn't the result of just the last couple of months, and it certainly is not the product of the partisan bill that was passed just 2 weeks ago. These efforts have been underway for more than a year now, and we owe a great deal of credit to Operation Warp Speed, the initiative set up by the Trump administration to accelerate the development of vaccines, treatments, and therapeutics.

Last summer, when President Trump speculated that we would have an effective vaccine by the end of the year, he received some serious blowback. One media outlet published a fact check saying it would require nothing short of a ``medical miracle.'' Well, thanks to the leadership of the previous administration, thanks to the great scientists, pharmaceutical companies, and others, that so-called miracle has come true not just once but twice. Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines received emergency authorization last year, and Johnson & Johnson's vaccine was authorized last month.

Rather than setting ambitious goals to bring an end to the pandemic, the Biden administration has embraced a different approach. An Associated Press headline in January evaluated the situation pretty well when it said that Biden's early approach is to ``underpromise'' and ``overdeliver.''

Well, in December, President-Elect Biden announced his administration's vaccine goal as 100 million shots in the first hundred days. That announcement came about a week before the first doses of the vaccine were distributed, before we had a real-world test of the processes that had been in the planning stages for months. But it quickly became obvious that we were on a pace to meet that goal before President Biden even took the oath of office on January 20. The week of the inauguration, we averaged 1 million shots a day. On January 20, 1.5 million Americans received the vaccine. One physician and public health expert described the President's goal as a ``disappointingly low bar.'' To no one's surprise, the administration met that goal well ahead of the deadline.

Last week, the President claimed a victory for hitting 100 million vaccines in 58 days. Well, so did he follow up with a new goal, a truly ambitious one that would get us shots in arms even faster? Did he set up a new benchmark to encourage States to make their vaccination efforts more efficient and effective? Well, not yet. Maybe he will. Maybe he will announce a new goal this week. For the sake of our country, I hope he sets the bar high.

Given the fact that we are now vaccinating about 2.5 million Americans per day--a staggering number, really--it is time for the administration to take a truly bold step. The goal here isn't to set a target you are almost certain to meet. After all, you didn't see the previous administration set a target of a successful vaccine by the summer of 2021, which is what many experts believed at the time.

Unfortunately, the underpromise, overdeliver strategy doesn't end with vaccinations. Just look at the President's latest comments about small outdoor gatherings. In the same speech where he tried to take a victory lap for the ``disappointingly low bar'' set for vaccinations, he made a rather confusing promise to the American people.

He said:

If we keep our guard up, stick together, and stick with the

science, we can look forward to a Fourth of July that feels a

little bit more normal with small groups able to gather for

cookouts in backyards.

Well, that was a little bit of a head-scratcher, when President Biden said that he anticipated that everybody who wanted the vaccine could get it by May, and now he is talking about having outdoor gatherings on the Fourth of July.

I can tell you, these small outdoor gatherings have been a part of many Texans' routines for almost all year now. Families and friends have spent time in driveways, backyards, open-air spaces, parks. They follow the public health guidelines to keep themselves and their loved ones safe while managing some sense of normalcy

The Centers for Disease Control has said it is safe for fully vaccinated individuals to gather not just outdoors but indoors as well. But based on the President's remarks last week, he is trying to frame these gatherings as a reward if things go well over the next few months. If you do everything right, then you might be able to hang out with your family in the backyard in 3 months. Well, the administration's own Centers for Disease Control has already told us that these gatherings are safe. Your current public health guidelines can't also double as a goal for 3\1/2\ months from now.

Then there is another big inconsistency between what the experts are telling us and what the administration is doing, and that has to do with reopening schools. Some children have now hit the anniversary mark of virtual learning. Studies have shown consistently that this is having a huge negative impact on America's kids academically, mentally, socially, and emotionally.

We need our schools to reopen, and, of course, we need that to happen safely, which they can. Back in December, then President-Elect Biden seemed to share that goal. He promised to safely reopen the majority of schools within his first hundred days in the White

House, another hundred-day goal. The experts tell us it is not only possible, but it has already been done across the country.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a report in January that said:

There has been little evidence that schools have

contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission.

In short, the schools are not a breeding ground for COVID-19, and as long as proper precautions are taken, schools can reopen safely. In fact, it has already happened across most of Texas. Nearly two-thirds of Texas schools are fully in-person, and just 3 percent of districts are still fully remote. Two-thirds are fully reopened, and 3 percent are fully remote.

Unfortunately, in this case, the science is at odds with a key supporter of our Democratic colleagues, and that is the teachers unions. For months, teachers unions have fought a safe return to in- person instruction even though the experts and real-world evidence tell us that it is safe. It has gone so far that they have now gotten into some pretty sticky situations.

A leaked post from a private Facebook group for the Los Angeles teachers union warned teachers not to post pictures of their spring break photos because it makes it difficult to argue that it is unsafe to return to school. Well, it is tough to tell parents that it is not safe for their kids to go to school and then turn around and tell teachers it is fine to go on vacation; just don't post pictures. Trusting science and listening to the experts means doing so all the time, not just when it is convenient or politically expedient.

We are seeing progress every day in our fight against COVID-19. That is the light at the end of the tunnel that is getting bigger and brighter, and the question is not if we get there but when. How quickly can we get more vaccines into arms? When will our children--all our children--return safely to the classroom? How long until families can hug one another without fear of spreading the virus to someone they love?

We all know this is a community effort. It is a team effort. It is a personal responsibility effort. Each of us has a role to play in stopping the spread of the virus. But leadership matters too. The goals and benchmarks set by the administration will determine how quickly all of these things can happen. Now is not the time to walk back goals, set low bars, or bow to unions and political supporters. The administration needs to set clear metrics and targets for how we reopen and find our new normal, and these goals should be based on the science and the advice of the experts--nothing less.

So we are getting close to safely crossing the finish line, and we shouldn't let politics or any other consideration slow us down.

I yield the floor.

I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, from El Paso to Brownsville, my home State shares a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. If you were daring enough to attempt to walk that entire stretch, you would trek through deserts, mountains, big cities, small towns, and maybe even stick your big toe in the Rio Grande. You get to know folks who are proud of the strong bonds that our country has with our southern neighbor, including many who have relatives in both countries. You would meet entrepreneurs whose businesses depend on legitimate trade and travel between our countries. You would talk with local, State, and Federal law enforcement officials who go above and beyond the call to keep our communities safe. And I have no doubt that along the way, you could enjoy some great Tex-Mex, and depending on the season, you would find the best grapefruit you have ever eaten in the Rio Grande Valley.

Our Texas-Mexico southern border is a beautiful, vibrant region with a rich sense of community that you can't find in any other part of the country. I believe it is truly unique.

Throughout my time in the Senate, I have had the opportunity to spend a lot of time in our border communities and work with their incredible leaders: mayors, county judges, sheriffs, school superintendents, NGOs--nongovernmental organizations--and countless others.

Well, I am sure you have heard the song ``God Bless Texas.'' It is true, I believe, and the folks I have come to call friends along the border are certainly doing the Lord's work. These men and women work around the clock to create safe communities and thriving economies, something that has been especially tough during the hand they have been dealt this last year with the pandemic. But they have lived through a pandemic, hurricanes, droughts, a winter storm that presented subzero freezing temperatures for a week. All have hit my State in the last 12 months.

Folks in these communities, as they have throughout the country, have lost friends and loved ones. They have lost jobs. They have lost businesses and opportunities and so much more. Now they are trying to deal with another crisis, one they had no hand in creating and should not be responsible for managing alone.

Unfortunately, the administration continues to play a high-stakes version of the game Taboo as they try to find a word--any word--but ``crisis'' to refer to what is happening along the southern border. President Biden himself has called it a ``humanitarian challenge.'' Secretary Mayorkas prefers the term ``situation.'' And the President's Chief of Staff referred to it as a ``mess.'' The problem here isn't the choice of the word you use to describe it but the implication of downplaying the seriousness of this migration surge.

In an attempt to lessen the impact of this dramatic increase in illegal migration, the administration has revoked policies that were helping deter such an influx. It failed to rapidly provide the resources needed to respond to the crisis once it revoked the previous policies, and now the border communities in my State along that 1,200- mile common border with Mexico are expected to pick up the slack.

Regardless of how you want to brand what is happening, here are the facts. Last month, Customs and Border Protection encountered more than 100,000 individuals along our border last month alone--100,000. That is the highest number since 2006. More than 9,000 of these 100,000 people were children, unaccompanied children, separated when their parents sent them, along with human smugglers, criminal organizations, to make their dangerous trek from Mexico or Central America or somewhere else into the United States. Another 19,000 are what are euphemistically called family units, usually 1 parent and 1 or more children.

Now, we know that this journey to our borders isn't safe or easy, and you can imagine that is especially true fo unaccompanied children. Many arrive at our border in critical health, having endured days and weeks or even months of exposure on the road. I have heard horrific stories of physical and sexual abuse that occur in the hands of these criminal organizations who move migrants from place A to place B. But they are nothing more than cartels, human smugglers, criminals who care nothing about the individuals whom they are ferrying from their point A to point B. All they care about is the money that they make, and they make a lot of money.

By law, children cannot be in the custody of Customs and Border Protection for more than 72 hours. Within that window, they are required by law to be transferred to the custody and care of the Department of Health and Human Services. But right now, the system is so overwhelmed that thousands of children have been in custody beyond the legal limit, including hundreds who have been held for more than 10 days in border detention facilities.

Axios has recently released some pictures taken inside, I believe, the Donna

detention facility showing children basically stacked end to end, trying to stay warm, trying to sleep because the Border Patrol facilities are simply overwhelmed.

The situation has grown so dire, the administration has sent the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help, and now they have set up a new influx care facility in Dallas and Midland to provide for these children. The Midland facility has experienced so many issues that no additional migrant teens are being sent there. In the first few days of operation, more than 10 percent of the population housed there tested positive for COVID-19, and at least one child has been hospitalized. One government official described the process of setting up the facility as ``building a plane as it's taking off.''

There is simply no reason the administration should have been caught flat-footed by this surge of illegal migration. After all, the President campaigned on promises of policies that were sure to lead to this very situation. When you remove the policies that deter illegal border crossings, what do you expect?

We know that the spring months are typically the busiest for migration because mild temperatures make the journey a little less dangerous and folks want to come to the United States for summer work.

We know the cartels and criminal organizations are very knowledgeable about our immigration laws. They know them perhaps better than most Americans do, and they know how to navigate them. We know a flawed court ruling on the Flores settlement agreement means even more children will come across our border because now families are subject to the same requirements as unaccompanied children. We know we have an immigration court backlog that is roughly 1.3 million cases deep, and the average time for a case to be presented in court is now 2\1/2\ years. Nevertheless, the Biden administration, by revoking the previous policies without having a plan to replace them, has created a perfect storm that anyone could have told them would end up in this situation. We have experienced migration surges in the past but never of this magnitude.

In the midst of a pandemic, Secretary Mayorkas has said that we are on track to see the highest number of border crossings in 20 years and the administration needs to take action now to keep things from getting any worse.

As migrants continue to make their way to our southern border in record numbers, law enforcement, local officials, and nongovernmental organizations, notwithstanding their best efforts, are not equipped to manage the influx, certainly not in these numbers. They don't have the facilities. They don't have the policies, the funding, or the resources to manage the crisis in a fair, efficient, and humane way. That needs to change.

For folks who are not from a border State or haven't spent much time at the border, it is difficult to understand just how complex the situation is. They may have learned what they think they know about the border from movies or novels, or they may have read news articles and assume border communities are dangerous or lawless places. That assumption could not be farther from the truth. But it is true that our border communities are being asked to carry more than their fair share of the weight during this crisis, when the past year has already been challenging enough with the pandemic.

Like cities across the country, border communities have had to cover a range of expenses created by the pandemic, but unlike those other communities, they now have the added economic struggle created by limits on nonessential border travel.

Prepandemic, folks from Mexico could travel across the border to shop, to eat at restaurants, and visit family members. These were huge drivers of the economy along our entire border region. But the pause on legitimate, nonessential travel by title 42 has created a serious economic strain on these communities, and leaders are struggling to understand the disconnect between the Biden administration's two very different approaches.

At a recent roundtable my friend Congressman Henry Cuellar and I hosted in Laredo, someone said: I don't understand how you can catch and release the migrants and not let our neighbors across the border come over and spend money in our communities to help bolster our economy.

This confluence of crises is a one-two punch for our border communities, and it is unfair they are expected to carry the burden of this crisis. That is the Federal Government's responsibility.

This Friday, my colleague Senator Cruz and I will welcome a number of our colleagues to the Rio Grande Valley, where they can hear and see about these challenges firsthand. I welcome any Member of the Senate or the Congress to join me at the border at a time of their choosing. I know I have benefited from the feedback and advice from the experts on the ground who are dealing with this crisis firsthand, and I am glad to bring some of my Senate colleagues on Friday along for a visit at this critical moment.

Hopefully that will help us to find a way, along with the administration in a bipartisan way, to reduce some of the pull factors that incentivize people to come and navigate our system.

You are never going to deal with the fact that people want a better life or are fleeing violence. We all get that. We understand why, as human beings, people would want to leave that, but we also know that the cartels are getting rich off of this business model, and certainly they are incentivized to encourage as many people as possible to come and pay their extortionate fees in the process. But the combination of those at this point--both the push factors and the pull factors, especially with the Biden administration putting a green light on our border and basically saying ``All comers are welcome to enter the country''--is creating an unreasonable expectation about what people are going to encounter, as well as overwhelming the capacity of our Border Patrol, Health and Human Services, and the Office of Refugee Relocation to be able to deal with them.

We know that the incentives involved in a catch-and-release system, in which people are asked to return in perhaps months, maybe years, for a future court date to consider their asylum claims, are nothing but an invitation for them to not appear and simply melt into the great American landscape and, again, continue to incentivize people to come because they know they can beat the system. They certainly can game the system, and, unfortunately, too often people beat the system, creating the situation we find now at the southern border.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, whether the administration wants to call it a challenge or a mess--or pick your word--a calculated word choice does not change the magnitude of what is currently happening on our southern border.

Hundreds of unaccompanied children are being detained on a daily basis, completely overwhelming the capacity of the Border Patrol and Health and Human Services to deal with it--witness the two new centers opened up in Midland, TX, in West Texas, and a new one at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas that will house approximately 300,000 young men.

At one point, there were more than 4,200 children in custody, nearly 3,000 of them held beyond the 72-hour time limit set by the Flores Settlement. For comparison, there were about 2,600 children in custody at any given time during the peak in 2019, so 2,600 now to 4,200.

In many cases, these children don't make the dangerous journey north with their parents but in the care of human smugglers--coyotes, as they are called. Parents pay these smugglers thousands of dollars to bring their children to the United States.

In some cases, along that long, treacherous journey, whether it is from Central America or from Mexico or anywhere else--because these children are not just limited to Mexico and Central America--these children are kidnapped by the smugglers on their way to the border because they know having a child in their custody will give them preferential treatment and allow them to stay in the country. Sadly, we know that, too often, children are mistreated, abused, or even sexually assaulted on the way to the United States.

There is a lot of work that has to be done from the moment the Border Patrol first encounters these children until they are transferred into the custody of Health and Human Services, but the Border Patrol lacks the physical space or the personnel or the resources to provide this number of children with the care and support they need and also to carry out their duties, especially during a deadly pandemic.

On Monday, I spoke with the Border Patrol sector chiefs and the Office of Field Operations Directors from across Texas. We talked about the surge in unaccompanied children and the cascading consequences this crisis has had on our other border missions.

As Border Patrol officers encounter, transport, and care for these children, they are often invariably diverted from their job securing the border, and so security gaps are left along the rest of the border. This is not an accident. This is really part of the strategy that the human smugglers and drug smugglers have: flood the zone, preoccupy the Border Patrol taking care of children, leaving gaps that can then be exploited, either by more human smugglers or by drug smugglers.

We all know that large amounts of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and the like come across our southern border. Ninety-two percent, according to the DEA, of all the heroin in the United States comes from Mexico.

So these smugglers and their really criminal organizations that ply in different commodities and different things, they flood the system to distract the Border Patrol and then exploit the vulnerabilities to bring people, drugs, weapons, and money across.

One of the Border Patrol chiefs told me that Customs and Border Protection needs to be able to identify and classify the migrants they meet, and it is being strained, which is impacting national security. For example, last Friday when I was in Carrizo Springs and in Laredo with my friend Henry Cuellar, a Democrat representing a border district in Texas along the Rio Grande, the sector chief told us that, just so far this year, migrants from 54 different countries were detained coming across the border in the Del Rio Sector. Now, I think that sort of gives you a better idea that this is not just a localized phenomenon; these are criminal networks with really connections all around the world. If you want to come from Mexico, for example, it will cost you a few thousand bucks. If you want to come from Central America, you pay a little bit more of a premium. If you want to come from Europe or a Middle East country, it will cost you even more. But it is only a matter of money because that is the only thing that these smugglers and these criminal organizations care about.

But then people from 54 different countries, some of which are countries of special interest to the United States for national security purposes--54 countries represented just so far this year in one sector, and I am sure the other Border Patrol sectors have similar stories.

What is more, since October, the Border Patrol has encountered more than 4,000 criminal aliens, nearly double the amount from the previous fiscal year in less than half the time. In order to qualify as a criminal alien, you have committed significant crimes, like assault, battery, domestic violence, sexual offenses, even manslaughter and homicide. Of course, these are just the ones we know about and who were actually detained. Many more--we don't know how many more, but many more get through unobstructed across the border.

While Border Patrol is overwhelmed by the sheer number of people crossing

our border, including the alarming number of children sent by themselves, the Border Patrol isn't able to properly surveil or apprehend potentially dangerous individuals and substances.

We have experienced migration surges in the past, most recently in 2014 when President Obama called it a humanitarian crisis and then again in 2019. We know how dangerous the journey to our border is for migrants, especially children. We know that spring and summer are often the busiest time periods. In other words, what we are seeing now is just a foreshadowing of what we expect to see in the coming weeks and months.

We also know that these criminal organizations pay attention to what our leaders are saying here in the United States. Congressman Cuellar and I, when we were in Carrizo Springs, were able to talk to a number of young men, teenagers, and asked how they heard about the border and their ability to get across. They said, well, they saw it on TV or heard from family members here in the United States or saw it on social media that now is the time to come, with a new administration that is not committed to border security, and so this was the time to make their run across the border.

But these organizations do pay attention, and unfortunately the actions of the Biden administration not only contributed to another surge this year, but they also made likely that it would be bigger than any other in recent memory.

The President campaigned on policies that would lead to this very outcome. After all, when you send a message that migrants can come to the United States even with the flimsiest asylum claims and stay for years until they are resolved and don't even really have to show up for their court hearing because of the backlog of 1.2 million cases in our immigration courts, what do we expect to happen?

What the Border Patrol tells me is that this is a combination of push factors and pull factors. The push factors we are familiar with. Who wouldn't want to come to the United States for a better life? Who wouldn't want to avoid the violence and crime associated with some of the gang activity in Central America? We all understand that. But the pull factors are the sense that you can actually successfully get into the United States through illegal means or by making a false asylum claim and then overloading the system and basically navigate your way into the United States without any negative consequences.

I believe we need to set up a system that honors and respects all legitimate asylum claims, but this isn't it. We need to find a way to move the children and other people claiming asylum to the head of the line so they can present their claims to an immigration judge. But, as you can imagine, only about 10 to 12 percent of the asylum claims are actually granted, and if your only concern is making it into the United States, maybe you don't want to go in front of an immigration judge. But then again, those who don't, the immigration judge, when their appointed court date comes, issues a default order of deportation. So if you had a valid asylum claim that would have been granted by a judge, you have lost that by virtue of your nonappearance at your hearing.

Well, Secretary Mayorkas said we are on track to see the highest number of border crossings in almost 20 years, and I can't say that I am surprised. There is simply no way to rewind time and prevent this crisis from happening, but it is absolutely urgent first that the administration acknowledge it and then work with Congress to address it.

I would encourage the President to follow his own advice, which is to listen to the experts. The experts I listen to when I travel to the border are Border Patrol, Health and Human Services, and the Office of Refugee Relocation. Those are the three Federal Government Agencies that deal with this crisis. I would be glad to welcome him to my State and introduce him to the dedicated men and women along the border who provide valuable services but who simply are overwhelmed and undersourced.

The communities in which they live along the border are beautiful, vibrant communities with outstanding local leaders, but they also feel like they have been abandoned by the Federal Government. They are the ones who are disproportionately impacted when you see a flood of humanity come through their borders, and they try their best, through nongovernmental organizations or just out of simple human mercy and sympathy for the plight of these migrants, to help them any way they can. But they, too, are overwhelmed. They are doing everything they can to manage the crisis, which they had no hand in creating, and they should not be expected to manage it without help from the Federal Government that is, indeed, responsible for our border.

Law enforcement, mayors, county judges, nongovernmental organizations--I have a long list of folks that I would be happy to share with the administration if they would be willing to listen. Indeed, one of the most significant things I think that President Biden could do, like he did after the polar vortex, the big freeze we had in Texas, the 120-year weather event--he was good enough to come to our State and talk to the first responders. I think he would benefit greatly if he made another trip on Air Force One down to the border so he could do what I have had the opportunity to do, and that is to talk to the experts and the people on the ground who understand this crisis and who have some, I think, very constructive ideas about how to deal with it.

Madam President, on another matter, nearly 20 years ago, I took my first trip to Israel. I had a good stroke of fortune: I met a brilliant, hilarious, opinionated, larger-than-life man named Roger Sofer. Roger was simply unlike anyone I had ever met before or anyone I have met since. He could captivate a room with anything from a serious discussion of national security and Israel-U.S. policies, to stories from his childhood, to jokes that, well, probably shouldn't be repeated here on the Senate floor.

Roger cared deeply about his family, his Jewish faith, and the many friends he earned throughout his life. I consider myself fortunate to be among those friends, and I would like just to share a few words about my friend Roger, who passed away last week.

As the old saying goes in my State, Roger wasn't born in Texas, but he got there as fast as he could. The incredible story of his life began in Queens, NY. It led him to the University of Tampa on a baseball scholarship as a left-handed pitcher and then to Fort Dix with the Army. He then went back to Florida, where he worked as a cabdriver, home to New York as a sales representative, and then finally to Houston, TX, where he lived when he and I met.

Clearly, young Roger was an enterprising guy. He understood the value of hard work, and even more importantly, he learned about the value of relationships. Roger and his friend Dan Steiner started their own financial planning and insurance firm and quickly found success.

Roger truly cared about everyone he worked with--his clients, his employees, and their families.

That personal attention translated into a thriving business and a lot of rewards in recognition to go along with it. But Roger never let work consume his entire life or take away from the people and causes he cared most about.

Roger grew up in a religious home and inherited a deep appreciation of his Jewish faith. His father Hyman was his hero and instilled in him a love of our country, as well as a love of Israel. Hyman would say, ``Don't worry about business, Roger, because if there's no Israel, there will be no business.'' That thought stuck. Throughout his life, Roger fought to secure a brighter future for our friends and allies in Israel.

In the 1980s, Melvin Dow and Stanford Alexander, two giants in the AIPAC community--the American Israel Public Affairs Committee--asked Roger to help grow the pro-Israel committee in Houston. Well, I know Roger never did anything halfway; he poured his heart and his soul into outreach efforts. When you have somebody as outgoing, passionate, and likable as Roger, you are bound to get results.

Roger's work in Houston was so successful that in 2002 he was asked to serve on AIPAC's National Board, a position he would hold for nearly two

decades. Lucky for me, that is how Roger and I ended up on the same trip to Israel in March of 2002. We visited Israel during the Second Intifada, a time of serious violence and unrest. Little did I know at the time I wouldn't just look to Roger for insight during our trip; he would become a trusted friend and source of advice over the next two decades.

Make no mistake, I wasn't the only one who learned from Roger. As a member of AIPAC's National Board, he would make almost monthly trips to Washington, DC--often with a group of Texans--to advocate for a strong future and a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.

Teddy Roosevelt once said, ``Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care.'' It only took a few words to realize how much Roger knew because you also saw how much he cared. He cared deeply about Israel, its people, and its success, and became a respected voice on the importance of a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. He didn't care if you were a Democrat or a Republican--if you were willing to listen, he was happy to talk. But meetings with Roger weren't limited to conversations about the Middle East or ongoing political tensions; in typical fashion, he peppered every conversation with a lot of fun too.

It wasn't uncommon for Roger to walk into a meeting with a Senator or a Congressman and show them pictures of his beloved dog, Ginger. It was even less surprising for that person to ask Roger the next time that they saw him, ``So, Roger, how is Ginger doing?'' He was a big animal lover, and along with dogs, his other great love, interestingly enough, was horses. He loved the animals themselves, as well as the atmosphere and energy at horse tracks. He was such a great handicapper that Rice University sent a statistics class with him to a horse track just so they could see how he did it.

Last year, just days after being diagnosed with a rare form of leukemia, Roger was able to witness the moment every horse enthusiast dreams about. A horse he co-owned named Tiz the Law qualified for the Kentucky Derby. That horse would go on to win the Belmont Stakes and place second in the Run for the Roses--one of Roger's proudest accomplishments.

Yes, Roger was a man of many talents: a left-handed pitcher, an expert handicapper, an amateur comedian, a skilled storyteller, and an effective advocate. Above all, though, Roger's greatest skill was his ability to live fully and authentically. He valued his relationships above all else, and he could turn a complete stranger into a friend with just a few words. I believe our friendship was proof of that.

Sadly, I, along with my wife Sandy, send condolences to Roger's beloved family, including his wife Linden; his children, Nicole, Scott, Jennifer, and Rebecca; as well as his grandchildren, Elizabeth, Sam, and Beau.

Roger lived an extraordinary life, and he leaves behind an unforgettable legacy. I am grateful to have known this man.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, it appears that our friends across the aisle are experiencing an existential crisis when it comes to deciding how to manage their newfound powers in the majority. We are just 2\1/2\ months into this new Congress, and already we are hearing the majority leader and many on the other side of the aisle threatening to blow up the rules of the Senate. After decades as a Senator, President Biden even yesterday relented and threw his support behind the plan.

The filibuster has been called into question a number of times over the past few years. That is to be expected, but it is just that our Democratic friends used to be on the other side of the argument. They took one position when they were in the minority, where the filibuster protected their rights. And now when they are in the majority, many of them are looking to eliminate any minority rights and to fundamentally change the Senate.

In 2018, our Democratic colleagues were afraid the Republican Senate majority would blow up the filibuster. I am not really sure why they were concerned. After all, Senator McConnell and Republican Senators have consistently defended the rights of the minority by use of the legislative filibuster, even when President Trump called for it to be eliminated.

But our Democratic friends keep piling on. Senator Durbin, the Senator from Illinois, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was asked about President Trump's call to end the filibuster--that was when President Trump called to end the filibuster--and he said: ``That would be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going back to the Founding Fathers.'' That would be on the right-hand side of this chart. Just to repeat, he said: ``That would be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going back to the Founding Fathers.''

I agree with Senator Durbin. I agreed then, and I agree now.

The Senate filibuster was designed to ensure that the two political parties would actually have to work together, which I think the American people believe is a good thing. And it should be hard to do the work of building consensus in a country as big and diverse as the United States.

But the filibuster was designed to make sure that the majority just couldn't jam things through and deny the rights of the minority to be heard. But when you get 60 Senators to agree on something, it becomes all but impossible for ultrapartisan proposals to become law. That is the nature of the consensus-building process, and that is a good thing for the country.

Imagine the instability and unpredictability that would occur if laws changed as quickly as Presidents and Senate majorities do. Just 4 years ago, Republicans controlled both Chambers of Congress and held the White House. Twelve years ago, our Democratic colleagues controlled all three. The filibuster was designed to encourage, again, consensus building on a bipartisan basis and to provide some stability between those transitory majorities and changing Presidents. And that is a good thing, like I said, in a country where the political party in control is constantly changing, and it ensures that a minority viewpoint cannot be steamrolled.

Our Senate Democratic friends have certainly benefited from the protections of the filibuster over the last 6 years. They filibustered countless bills on everything from pandemic relief to police reform.

But now it appears that our Democratic colleagues--at least their leadership--have flip-flopped. The political tides have shifted, and since the radical left wants to get rid of the filibuster, so do they.

In a floor speech earlier this week, this same Senator, Senator Durbin, our friend from Illinois, said the filibuster is ``not the guarantor of democracy. It has become the death grip of democracy''--a pretty dramatic conversion from 2018 to 2021.

What has changed? Well, the majority has changed. Republicans controlled the majority when he thought the filibuster was a good thing. Now, when Democrats control the majority, he thinks it is a bad thing.

Apparently, the countless filibusters of our Democratic colleagues were not a mockery of democracy. They certainly wouldn't be guilty of that. But

now that the shoe is on the other foot, Democrats are ready to hit the big red button and go nuclear. And, I must say, once you go nuclear around here, you certainly don't go back.

But Senator Durbin's views aren't the only ones that have changed on this matter. As I mentioned, former Senator and now President Joe Biden finally changed his views as well. For decades, he was a staunch defender of the institution. When he was asked about removing the filibuster, going nuclear, he said:

This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the

arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power-grab by the

majority party.

Well, that is certainly not mincing your words. And this isn't some long ago abandoned view of his. In January of this year, President Biden was asked if he could move his agenda with the filibuster rules intact, and he answered yes and explained the opportunities to work together on shared priorities, as he did throughout his career as a U.S. Senator.

He went on to add:

I think we can reach consensus on that and get it passed

without changing the filibuster rule.

But now the pressure has been put on both President Biden and the Democratic leadership in the Senate to endorse a rules change, not by the ordinary course of rule changes but by the nuclear option. We know that there are unpredictable consequences of changing the rules in a place where your power, where your majority, is never guaranteed. Chipping away at the rights of the minority may help you today, but you will live to regret it when the shoe is on the other foot.

But it won't take a shift in the majority for our Democratic colleagues to see the disastrous consequences of going nuclear on the filibuster rule because, if anybody needed a reminder, we have a 50-50 Senate: 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans.

Yesterday, Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, somebody who has been around this institution a long time and understands it better than almost anybody I know, reminded our colleagues that ``[t]his is an institution that requires unanimous consent to turn the lights on before noon.''

Unanimous consent is literally the grease that helps the machine run. In order to accomplish even the most mundane tasks in the Senate, you need an agreement. Most of the time it is easy because it is not controversial; it is not partisan; it is the right, practical thing to do. But you need compromise, and you need a quorum.

This rules change being floated wouldn't clear a path for productivity in the Senate. It is an invitation to futility. If our Democratic colleagues take the unprecedented step of blowing up the filibuster, they can expect to be met with an unprecedented response.

Republicans will not sit idly by while Democrats take an axe to the rules in order to advance a partisan agenda. If Democrats go down this road, they will have no one to blame but themselves for the consequences of a horrible miscalculation.

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