Floor Statements

Mr. President, about 1 year ago today, Congress was in the midst of a debate about the most effective way to respond to COVID- 19. On a call with his colleagues, the House majority whip, Mr. Clyburn, reportedly laid out his vision about how his caucus in the House should proceed. He said, it is reported: This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.

For American families, this pandemic has been an unmistakable tragedy, one characterized by lost lives and lost livelihoods, but, apparently, for some, it is viewed as a tremendous opportunity.

The partisan $1.9 trillion bill that was signed into law last week is proof that, apparently, the Democrats in Congress and in the White House agree. After all, this legislation includes a long list of non- COVID-related priorities, again, completely unrelated to the crisis at hand: blank checks for mismanaged union pension funds, funding for climate justice, backdoor money for Planned Parenthood, an exclusive paid leave program for government bureaucrats, and the list goes on and on.

Before the bill was even signed into law, folks from the other side of the aisle started advocating making many of the provisions permanent. This is an emergency measure, supposedly, but folks advocated making those temporary provisions permanent, further proof that this is more than just a pandemic relief response; this is about, in the words of Mr. Clyburn, restructuring government as we know it.

But it doesn't stop there. Now our Democratic colleagues in the House and some in the Senate apparently want to hijack the State and Federal election system, starting with making temporary pandemic election responses permanent. Of course, our elections are run at the State and local level. As a matter of fact, I recall, given the efforts of the Russian intelligence services to interfere with our election in 2016, one of the strengths of our system was its dispersed nature, suggesting, in other words, that if it had been a single system, it would have been much easier for our adversaries to interfere--and particularly in the cyber realm.

But we know, as a result of the pandemic, States made provisional changes to their 2020 election processes to make sure that people could safely exercise their right to vote. In my State, we extended early voting. We allowed voters to submit mail-in ballots in designated drop boxes.

Several States, of course, expanded eligibility for mail-in voting. Some, like California, took things even further and sent mail-in ballots to every registered voter. At the time, these changes were billed as temporary, given the unique and extraordinary nature of the challenges presented by the pandemic, but as the House minority whip has said, this pandemic, apparently, is viewed as a tremendous opportunity to restructure the way we run and conduct elections.

House Democrats have passed legislation to make many of the temporary changes in the 2020 elections permanent and add a list of other so- called reforms in order to federalize our State- and local-run elections. This is in the face of article I of the Constitution that explicitly gives the States the power to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding elections.

Yet this 791-page document creates a one-size-fits-all mandate for all States. It actually preempts State law, starting with mail-in balloting. Any person in any State could request a mail-in ballot for any reason. There is no need to say why you can't vote in person,

which is the current policy in most States.

Those ballots would not, under this bill, even have to be mailed in by the voter or dropped in a State-sanctioned ballot box because this legislation legalizes ballot harvesting, which means that mail-in ballots could be collected by paid activists or campaign staffers or anyone who has a stake in the outcome of the election

It goes so far as to specify that States may not put any limit on how many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated person can return. It really sounds like an invitation to fraud, and you can see how this could go badly pretty quickly. Maybe the ballot gets turned in with thousands of others. Maybe it is altered. Maybe it ends up in the trash. It is hard to say.

That gets to one of the root problems with this legislation is it does create limitless opportunities for fraud. Every single ballot cast illegally or due to fraud undercuts and neutralizes every legally cast ballot.

One way this bill removes some of the most basic requirements of most States' ballot integrity safeguards against election fraud is by removing any requirement of identification. This was, we should recall, one of the main recommendations of the bipartisan 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, cochaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III. The Commission recommended that voters should be required to present photo ID cards and that States should provide free cards to voters who did not have a driver's license.

In order to vote in person, most States require voters to produce some valid form of identification. I know mine does. In Texas, there are three options--actually, several options: a driver's license, a passport, a military ID, a citizenship certificate, and other forms of government-issued ID. If, for some reason, you can't obtain one of these forms of ID, there is still a process in place to allow a person to vote by presenting other documents, making sure that they identify the person casting the ballot.

Matching the name of an eligible voter with the name on a valid form of ID is a commonsense safeguard against fraud but one which this legislation seeks to eliminate. If you go to a convenience store and want to buy a six-pack of beer or if you want to buy cigarettes or you want to get on an airplane, you have to present an ID card, but this bill eliminates that requirement when it comes to the most sacred duty and privilege that we have as citizens, and that is to vote.

This legislation stops States from requiring voters to provide proof of identification. Just sign a piece of paper saying you are who you are, and no one can ask any questions. On top of that, this bill would require the States to automatically register anyone in their databases, for everything from DMV to public assistance programs. Well, we know these databases are not limited to registered voters or even eligible voters. That could include people illegally present in the country because some States allow a driver's license to be issued to noncitizens who are not legally present in the country. These databases include other noncitizens and others not eligible to vote, not to mention the fact that those who are already registered to vote could be registered again and again.

And even if there are duplicate registrations or if someone passes away or moves, States would not be allowed to clean up the voter rolls within 6 months of an election. Just when you think things can't get any crazier, they do.

Our Democratic colleagues are proposing that the taxpayers fund their elections. A lot of companies have a match program for charitable giving. If an employee donates to a charity of their choice, then the company will match that donation dollar for dollar. The same principle applies except, instead of a charity getting the money, under this proposed legislation, it is now a political candidate. Instead of a company footing the bill, it is the taxpayers, and instead of an exact match, it is up to $6 for every $1 donated. That means if someone donates 200 bucks to their preferred candidate, Federal taxpayers will wind up coughing up $1,200.

Well, I think there are a lot of better uses for government tax dollars. They can go to support crime victims or support the response to the humanitarian crisis at the border, which we are experiencing right now. But, no, the proposal in this legislation is, let's use it to elect them.

Then there are the campaign vouchers. This bill creates a new program that provides eligible voters with a $25 voucher to donate to the campaign of their choosing--again, more government, taxpayer-funded election activities.

I could go on and on.

This legislation also alters the fundamental structure of the Federal Election Commission to remove any need for bipartisanship or consensus building. It undermines trust and accountability in elections. It implements a new financial disclosure policy that even the American Civil Liberties Union says ``could directly interfere with the ability of many to engage in political speech about causes that they care about.'' That is the ACLU.

Above all, this bill amounts to nothing more than a Federal hijacking of State elections. I can promise you, folks in my State don't want Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Schumer to determine how elections are run in our State. They want accountable leaders in our State, elected by and accountable to them, to determine the best way to conduct free and fair elections.

Following the last two Presidential campaigns, the side that lost had expressed concerns about election security. A partisan attempt to overhaul our entire election system is hardly a confidence-building exercise. This bill is not a serious attempt to improve security and accountability in our elections; rather, it is a partisan power grab that will do serious damage to our Republic.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, last Thursday night, I was able to return home to Texas, and on Friday, I went to the southern border. Texas has 100 miles of common border with Mexico, and, obviously, we are at ground zero whenever there is a border crisis.

I was glad to be joined by my friend Congressman Henry Cuellar, who has been a partner of mine on bipartisan, bicameral border security and immigration reform legislation in the past, and we were also joined by Congressman Michael Burgess, our friend from North Texas.

We visited a holding facility in Carrizo Springs, which houses young boys, ages 13 through 17, who were apprehended along the border. We were able to see the facility, which includes medical care, classroom space, dining facilities, and legal services for these young men. And we heard from the Health and Human Services workers who are doing everything they can to care for these children, despite being completely overwhelmed.

When we visited, there were 679 children between the ages of 13 and 17, but the facility is expected to reach capacity by today. This is no accident that we are seeing waves of unaccompanied minors coming across the border because the human smugglers and the drug traffickers understand our laws perhaps better than we do. And they know that if you are able to flood the zone with unaccompanied children, the Border Patrol are going to be distracted and diverted from their border security mission to take care of these children and to make sure that they are safe.

In the meantime, the drug smugglers exploit those gaps left when the Border Patrol leaves the frontlines to handle and process these unaccompanied children. Last year, more than 80,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in this country, and, unfortunately, a significant percentage of that involves the methamphetamine, the fentanyl, the heroin, and the cocaine that comes up through the southern border in the hands of the same criminal organizations that move people, traffic in human beings, and, again, smuggle drugs.

In the 2 months since President Biden took office, the situation along the border has come to rival the largest surges that we have seen in previous years. We remember the border crisis of 2014, when an alarming number of unaccompanied children and families came across the southern border and completely overwhelmed the system. That summer, the situation was so dire that President Obama called it a humanitarian crisis.

Then came the surge in 2019. That May, Customs and Border Protection reported a recordbreaking 144,000 encounters with migrants along the southwest border, more than double the amount we experienced during the 2014 humanitarian crisis.

So if 2014 was a humanitarian crisis, 2019 was a humanitarian crisis on steroids. And I am afraid the current situation is going to get nothing but worse and perhaps outpace even the humanitarian crisis on steroids that we saw in 2019.

What makes this even more complicated is, while this isn't the first surge of migrants we have seen across the border, it is the first time we have seen it during a COVID-19 pandemic. And based on the current trend, this one is shaping up to be far worse than anything we have experienced in the past.

Last month, Customs and Border Protection encountered more than 100,000 individuals coming across the border, the highest number since 2006. Out of those 100,000 individuals last month, it included 9,000 unaccompanied children and 19,000 migrants coming across as families; that is, some combination of a mother and father and minor children.

Based on the sheer numbers, this is a problem. It is overwhelming the capacity--physical capacity--to house and to take care of these children and to make sure that these individuals are processed according to the law. Border Patrol and Health and Human Services and our immigration courts do not have the capacity to manage an influx this large.

And when you add the operational challenges and risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, it becomes even more difficult to house and care for these migrants, especially the children.

The facilities like Carrizo Springs were previously at a 40-percent capacity to allow for social distancing--something we have heard a lot about in the last year--but the number of unaccompanied children has climbed so high that the Biden administration is now allowing those facilities to operate at 100-percent capacity, despite the obvious risk of spreading COVID-19 because of a failure or inability to socially distance.

At one point last week, there were more than 3,700 children in the custody of the Border Patrol. By comparison, there were about 2,600 children in custody at the peak of the 2019 crisis. So the numbers are significantly higher.

Reports over the weekend show that the number has increased to more than 4,200, with nearly 3,000 held beyond the 72-hour legal limit imposed by a court settlement.

While these migrant children are without a doubt the biggest victims of this crisis, there are cascading consequences. In Brownsville alone, more than 200 migrants were released from the Border Patrol's custody, having tested positive for COVID-19--200 positive for COVID-19, ushered into the country.

So despite the obvious health risks, many of these individuals continued their travels to their ultimate destinations, both within and outside the State of Texas. Some traveled, we know, as far north as Maryland, North Carolina, and New Jersey. And this rapid-pace catch- and-release practice places a serious strain on the resources of our border communities.

During the deadly winter storm last month, the mayor of Del Rio pleaded for the administration to stop releasing migrants into the city and surrounding area. The city's capacities were already stretched thin. The mayor, Bruno Lozano, said: ``We will be forced to make a decision to leave them without resources under these dire circumstances.''

When the President's Chief of Staff was asked recently about the border crisis in a recent interview, he said: ``We inherited a real mess.''

Well, that is not the way I see it. The policies the administration inherited deterred the human smugglers, the coyotes, and cartels from even attempting to smuggle children into the United States, particularly during the

COVID-19 pandemic. They required, under the Migrant Protection Program, migrants to remain in Mexico while their asylum claims were being processed.

Of course, the Biden administration has, in sort of a reflexive manner, reversed all of the previous administration's policies without any plan to put in its place and without regard to the consequences.

Well, the Migrant Protection Program, which was negotiated with the government of Mexico, worked pretty well. It allowed border communities to know that they wouldn't have to bear the brunt of thousands of migrants coming across the border into their communities while simultaneously battling a pandemic.

The Biden administration didn't inherit this mess; it helped create it. President Biden campaigned on the basis of policies that would lead to this very outcome.

One woman who crossed the Rio Grande on a smuggler's raft said the Biden administration is the reason she and her 1-year-old son attempted the journey at all. She said: ``That gave us the opportunity to come.'' And come they did.

Whether you call this a mess, as the President's Chief of Staff did, or a human challenge, as the Secretary of Homeland Security did, I can tell you one thing: Unless the Biden administration reverses course, it will only get worse. We usually see the peak numbers of migration happen during the springtime and in the early summer, frankly, because of the weather and the ease of passage. So we haven't seen nothing yet compared to what we will see unless action is taken.

During my visit last Friday, one of the people involved in the operation of the Carrizo Springs facility said: This is a category 5 hurricane with tropical storm force winds on the coast. It is coming.

Well, we have seen this before, as I said--many times, in fact. And unless action is taken to stem the flow of migrants across the border, that category 5 hurricane is going to break the entire system.

In my time in the Senate, I have always looked to the men and women on the ground--the Border Patrol who wear green uniforms, the Customs and Border Protection officials who wear blue uniforms. I have looked to them to learn more about how things are going and how Congress and other policymakers can provide support.

As I said, we share a 1,200-mile border with Mexico, and our border communities are made up of incredible networks of law enforcement, local leaders, and nongovernmental organizations that work together to help keep the migrants safe, as well as communities safe. Many of them are motivated solely by their humanitarian impulses, and we couldn't do as well as we are doing without them.

One frustration I have heard in recent weeks is over vaccine distribution for Border Patrol and other Federal officers who have no choice but to come in contact with COVID-19-positive migrants coming across the border. These men and women--Federal employees, Federal law enforcement officers--are at significant risk of contracting COVID-19 because of their work with detained and vulnerable populations.

We know that more than 8,000 Customs and Border Protection employees have tested positive for COVID-19, and 27 have died since the start of the pandemic. More than 2,800 of these 8,000 cases have been in my State of Texas. But despite this knowledge, the administration has not made vaccinating these men and women on the frontline a priority.

Last week, Senator Sinema of Arizona and I sent a letter to Secretary Mayorkas to advocate for Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security's other Federal law enforcement officers to be prioritized for vaccination. I am glad to announce that the administration responded by opening a vaccination clinic in the Rio Grande Valley, which is a great first step, but law enforcement across the entire border deserve to be vaccinated as soon as possible. If the administration is going to implement policies that create even more dangers to these frontline officers and agents, the very least they can do is offer them protection from COVID-19.

After visiting the Carrizo Springs facility, Congressman Cuellar and I traveled to Laredo, TX, where we met with a group of mayors, county judges, and a range of community leaders for a discussion on the ways this crisis is impacting them.

We discussed the bungled mess of the immigration courts, which have a backlog of 1.2 million cases. In fact, the human smugglers and drug cartels know that because of our laws and our failure to offer consequences associated with illegal entry into the United States, that we will never get to those 1.2 million backlog cases and that people can simply evade the law by refusing to show up for their court- appointed date.

Well, we talked about how the biggest beneficiaries of the crisis weren't the migrants crossing the border but, rather, the transnational criminal organizations--the cartels, the human smugglers, and the coyotes who bring them here. Border Patrol told me that the average smuggling fee for cartels to bring a single unaccompanied child into the Del Rio Sector was more than $7,300--$7,300 per child. The Chief of the Border Patrol sector there in Del Rio told me that just this year, they have detained people from 54 separate countries--54 separate countries--coming through the Del Rio Sector of the Border Patrol. So this is like the United Nations coming across our border, and, frankly, it is such a financially rewarding business for the human smugglers and the criminal networks, they will literally bring people from anywhere around the world across our southern border into the United States. That ought to concern all of us.

Well, the Border Patrol is mounting a struggle against the border crisis and the pandemic simultaneously. Like cities across the country, our border communities have already had a very difficult year battling COVID-19. They had to cover a range of expenses created by the pandemic in order to keep their communities safe and healthy. But, unlike other communities across the country, they had the added economic hardship created by nearly a year of legal limits on nonessential cross-border travel.

Prepandemic, visitors from Mexico would travel across the border to shop, eat at restaurants, and visit their family members. They were a huge economic driver in our border communities from El Paso all the way down the Rio Grande to the Rio Grande Valley. But the ``pause'' on legitimate nonessential travel has created a serious economic strain on these communities, and those leaders are struggling to understand the disconnect between the Biden administration's two different approaches.

One of the participants at the roundtable said: ``I don't understand how you can catch-and-release and not let our neighbors across the border come over and spend money in our communities to help [grow] our economy.''

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

In many cases, nongovernmental organizations carry a significant amount of weight that, quite frankly, is unfairly placed on their shoulders. Congressman Cuellar and I were joined in Laredo with three incredible NGOs whose resources are already stretched thin because of the pandemic and have managed to take on a substantial amount of work in managing this humanitarian crisis.

I want to commend Catholic Charities of Laredo, the Sisters of Mercy, the Holding Institute Community Center, and other NGOs along the Texas border for everything they have done to respond to the humanitarian crisis. I encourage anyone who is interested in understanding the crises and working to find solutions, including President Biden, to visit our border and to hear from these same individuals firsthand.

No matter what party controls the Senate, the House, or the White House, these law enforcement, local leaders, and NGOs are doing everything they can to keep both migrants and their communities safe. They are currently overwhelmed, frustrated, and eager for change, and their voices must be heard.

We are at an inflection point in the humanitarian crisis, and unless the administration acts and acts quickly, we are headed down a very dangerous

path. We have seen enough of these surges in the past to know what to expect.

If you are opposed to human trafficking, human suffering, drug smuggling, pushing migrants into the shadows, then you should be absolutely alarmed by what is happening along the border today.

The hurricane is on the way. I hope the administration and Congress will take a serious interest in acting before it makes landfall.

I yield the floor

Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me just congratulate our colleague from Ohio.

That was, perhaps, the most concise and informative speech I have heard on that topic, including speeches that I have given on that topic. In representing a border State, as I do, and in my having served on the Judiciary Committee and on the Immigration Subcommittee for my entire time here, the way he described it, I thought, was entirely accurate. I think you can call it a crisis, a challenge--whatever you want to call it--but it is getting worse all the time, and I think it will get much, much worse if we don't act and act together. So I thank him for his outstanding remarks.

(Ms. CORTEZ MASTO assumed the Chair.)

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

Madam President, yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard from the nominees for the No. 2 and No. 3 jobs at the Department of Justice.

As you know, earlier today, we confirmed the next Attorney General of the United States, Judge Merrick Garland. I supported Judge Garland's nomination because I think he is a qualified, mainstream nominee with the right experience and the right temperament to lead the Department of Justice. I believe being Attorney General is probably the hardest job in the Cabinet because you have two masters. One is the rule of law, as the chief law enforcement officer for the country; the other is, you are a member of the President's Cabinet and serve at his or her pleasure, obviously, a political appointment.

Judge Garland told me, and I take him at his word, that he would work hard to keep politics out of the work of the Justice Department--a goal that folks on both sides of the aisle should support, especially after the struggles of previous administrations.

As I said, I was proud to support Judge Garland's nomination, and now we begin the process of considering other senior positions at the Department of Justice.

One of the nominees who came before the Judiciary Committee yesterday was Lisa Monaco, who has been nominated to serve as the Deputy Attorney General.

Ms. Monaco is a lifelong public servant who previously spent 15 years at the Department of Justice. She is a highly respected Federal prosecutor and national security expert. She advised President Obama and a number of other top government officials on matters like homeland security, cyber security, and counterterrorism, and her expertise extends beyond the ins and outs of matters of policy. Her knowledge of the Department of Justice as an organization will be invaluable to the Department, whose more than 100,000 employees are responsible for carrying out a diverse set of missions. It is a huge organization with a lot of moving parts.

Like Judge Garland, Ms. Monaco affirmed to me that she does not intend to inject politics or to even give it a hearing within the Department of Justice and her duties as the Deputy Attorney General.

I asked her, for example, if she would allow Mr. Durham, who has been appointed as special counsel, to investigate the Crossfire Hurricane issue from the last administration and the tail end of the Obama administration. She said she saw no reason not to give Mr. Durham a chance to complete his work. That is the same position we took on Robert Mueller, who was appointed as special counsel to investigate President Trump. Again, I take her at her word that she will not do anything to fire Mr. Durham or deprive him of the ability to complete his important work.

Ms. Monaco discussed her experience at the Department over the course of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. She really does have a lot of important, relevant experience. She talked about the unique role of the Justice Department, which, as I suggested a moment ago, functions both as an executive agency that is charged

with implementing the President's policies as well as being an independent investigator and, in some cases, a prosecutor. She described the importance of acting free from political or partisan influence as her ``North Star.''

While Ms. Monaco and I will surely have policy disagreements at some point, I trust her ability to fairly and impartially administer justice while operating free of personal bias or political agenda. I believe she is well qualified to serve as the Deputy Attorney General, and I plan to support her nomination.

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for the second nominee who appeared before the Judiciary Committee yesterday. Vanita Gupta has been nominated to serve as the Associate Attorney General, which is sometimes considered to be the No. 3 position at the Department of Justice. Throughout her career, Ms. Gupta has been a clear and outspoken advocate for some pretty radical policies.

In 2012, for example, she wrote that States should decriminalize the possession of all drugs--not just marijuana but all drugs--which, I presume, would include things like fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, and other highly addictive and destructive drugs. In yesterday's hearing, when I asked Ms. Gupta about this statement, she took the opposite position. She didn't tell me ``I used to advocate for that position and have now changed my position.'' She said, unequivocally, that she did not advocate for the decriminalization of all drugs. It became apparent she wanted Senators to forget what she previously wrote:

States should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs,

particularly marijuana, and for small amounts of other drugs.

That is a quote from an article she wrote in 2012. Unfortunately, the list of inconsistencies does not end there.

In June of 2020, less than a year ago, Ms. Gupta argued that it ought to be easier to sue police officers in court for money damages. Now, this is sometimes called ``qualified immunity,'' which recognizes the fact that law enforcement officers have to make split-second decisions--life-or-death decisions, actually--and that it would be unfair to them to, in retrospect, go back and flyspeck all of their decisions. In other words, it gives them some room in which to operate, recognizing the unique nature of their job. It applies to other government employees, too. Yet, in June 2020, less than a year ago, she argued that it was time to revisit this doctrine of qualified immunity--in other words, to make it easier to sue police officers for money.

This was one of the many steps that she outlined in an opinion piece in a national publication following the death of George Floyd. Nine months later, she says she does not support that position--one she supported 9 months ago. Now she says she does not support the position of making it easier to sue police officers.

And there is more.

Last summer, Ms. Gupta put her support behind the ``defund the police'' movement. As our country engaged in an important and long overdue debate about the police's use of force and responsible policing strategies, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on that very topic.

Ms. Gupta testified before the committee and said:

While front-end systems changes are important, it is also

critical for state and local leaders to heed calls from Black

Lives Matter and Movement for Black Lives activists to

decrease police budgets and the scope, role, and

responsibility of police in our lives.

Yesterday, Ms. Gupta did not mince words. She said she does not support defunding the police, and she said decreasing police budgets was not defunding the police. Well, at the time we were discussing this movement for defunding police, she attempted to parse her words. It is tough to reconcile the stark difference between what Ms. Gupta has said in the past and what she now says as she attempts to win support in the Senate. I am wary and, frankly, skeptical of confirmation conversions wherein people take the opposite positions when they are nominated for important, Senate-confirmed positions from the positions they have taken in the past.

I understand her interest in distancing herself from her previous positions. Decriminalizing drugs, eliminating qualified immunity-- making it easier to second-guess and sue police officers for money damages--and defunding the police are radical policy positions that should disqualify someone from becoming the third-highest ranking official at the Justice Department. In order to be confirmed, Ms. Gupta knows she needs to convince us that she actually holds mainstream views on law enforcement strategies and issues. I find it hard to believe that these views, which are not from decades-old law school writings but are recent public statements--indeed, sworn testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee--are views she no longer holds, which she said she held so recently.

I want to be clear on one point.

The opinions of Ms. Gupta's as a private citizen are not an issue. She has every right to hold opinions that differ from mine or anybody else's, but when you are the nominee for a high level--indeed, one of the highest levels--of critical law enforcement positions, these are highly problematic and, to my mind, disqualifying.

Perhaps more so than any other Federal Department or Agency, the Department of Justice must operate free from bias and political agendas. The men and women leading the Department must be able to separate their personal beliefs from the jobs before them. No matter how they feel about the wisdom of the policies enacted by Congress, their jobs are to enforce the law not as they want it to be but as it is. People across the country should have confidence that the senior leaders at the Justice Department will follow the law as written-- without fail. We can't have leaders who turn a blind eye to whatever is politically convenient when it conflicts with their personally held positions.

Based on Ms. Gupta's clear history of radical policy positions, which stands in stark contrast to the laws she would be charged with enforcing, I do not believe she can separate her convictions from the job at hand. Leaders within the Department must be able to view all matters as matters of fact and as matters of duty, not just as matters of opinion or as platforms to argue for changes in the law.

As the Senate has considered the President's nominees over the past several weeks, I have been very clear that I will not oppose nominees based simply on the President's political party. I think the President is entitled to some deference as to the people he chooses. That was the strategy of our Democratic colleagues previously, and it is incredibly damaging to both our country and its institutions. Just because a President you don't like has nominated somebody does not justify opposing that President's nominee. I will continue to evaluate all nominees of this President based on their merits and their abilities to do the jobs for which they were nominated.

I firmly believe that the American people deserve to have qualified, fairminded individuals leading these important Departments and Agencies. For the Department of Justice, which is responsible for enforcing the law of the land and imparting fair and equal justice, that is doubly true. There is simply no room for political or partisan or ideological agendas at the Department of Justice. I am concerned that Ms. Gupta will continue to pursue those objectives from within the Department and use all of the Department's tools and the authority given to her to achieve these ideological outcomes. Therefore, I cannot support her nomination

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, it doesn't seem like that long ago--it wasn't; it was only January 20 of this year--that we heard President Biden talk about healing the divisions in our country and promoting unity. He promised to restore respectful, bipartisan communication and cooperation. He spoke eloquently, saying:

Without unity there is no peace, only bitterness and fury.

No progress, only exhausting outrage.

No nation, only a state of chaos.

It really was a fine speech. But here we are, 7 weeks into the Biden administration with a lot of bitterness and fury and outrage over the President's first big, broken promise. On Saturday afternoon, following an all-night voting marathon, our Democratic colleagues passed, by themselves, their so-called COVID-19 relief bill.

Sadly, the lack of bipartisan support was not a surprise. After all, our Democratic colleagues decided to abuse the reconciliation process for this very reason. They wanted to pass a bill they knew would not generate any support among Republicans because it really is a Trojan horse for their liberal wish list. And the only way they could make that happen would be to exclude Republicans, turn down offers of bipartisanship, as the President did when 10 Republicans visited him at the White House just a few weeks ago and decided to go it alone, which is what our Democratic colleagues did.

Since Republicans had no say in the drafting of the bill and because our Democratic friends chose to skip the normal committee consideration, our only opportunity to make any changes to the bill came through the amendment process on the floor. From roughly 11 a.m. on Friday until 12:30 p.m. on Saturday, the Senate voted on more than 30 amendments, largely from folks on our side of the aisle, almost all of which were rejected in a party-line vote.

Outside of Washington, DC, not many people stay up for 24 hours straight to watch Congress vote on budget amendments, so I think it is important that we recap what the American people missed while they were sleeping.

The first amendment vote last Friday was a good barometer of what was happening on the other side of the aisle. The first vote, teed up by the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Sanders, would have more than doubled the minimum wage at $15 an hour. The Congressional Budget Office said that this would kill 1.4 million jobs, and then the Senate Parliamentarian said that this was an improper use of the budget reconciliation process.

But our Democratic colleagues wanted to take this shot anyway, so they voted to waive a budget point of order, but it did not go well. Eight Democrats voted alongside all Republicans to prevent this abuse of the budget reconciliation process and prevent this job-killing minimum wage mandate from becoming part of this bill.

As it turns out, there is bipartisan opposition to killing jobs at a time when our economy is already on a fragile footing. Who would have thought otherwise?

And once Senators cast their votes, our Democratic friends held the vote open for a recordbreaking 12 hours as they tried to whip their caucus into shape on the most critical amendment, which was next in line.

I am not one to tell our friends across the aisle how to do their job, but normally, when you have a vote, you know ahead of time how that vote is going to come out. That is just legislation 101. But when you are trying to rush, at warp speed, a nearly $2 trillion wish list to the President's desk, I guess you don't have the time to do things the right way, and you certainly don't have an interest in getting them done in a bipartisan fashion.

But on the rest of the votes we held, over and over again, our Democratic colleagues held together and blocked commonsense amendments offered by this side of the aisle. For example, there were amendments to stop blue States from receiving more than their fair share of the State and local funding. The Democratic proposal includes a jaw- dropping $350 billion for State and local aid--more than double what was spent in the CARES Act last March when the economic picture was far more dire.

Unlike the CARES Act funding that was distributed based on population, this proposal separated the funds into two pots of money-- one to be distributed based on a population formula while the second is based on the unemployment rate.

Senator Graham from South Carolina offered an amendment which would have required this funding to follow the same formula that we did in March, in a bipartisan way, rather than this new formula that favors blue States.

Since the primary argument for the bill was that States needed this funding because of lost tax revenues, it made sense that the largest population States should receive the most funding, a per capita formula. This would eliminate a big windfall for blue States that have largely kept their economies on ice and shuttered, even as COVID-19 cases decreased.

Then there was an amendment from the Senator from Utah, Senator Romney, which would have ensured State and local funding was only going to those States that actually need it. What a concept. His amendment would require States to apply for aid through the Treasury Department. They could then receive funds to help recover pandemic-related expenses, revenue losses, or unexpected Medicaid costs. But, of course, in a party-line vote, our Democratic colleagues blocked that amendment as well.

And it is not just State and local funding that folks on my side of the aisle wanted us to use more responsibly. I offered an amendment to improve the quality of care for unaccompanied migrant children who arrived along the U.S.-Mexico border. We know that these children are especially vulnerable and their health and safety should have been addressed in this COVID package.

Well, President Biden's border crisis is shaping up to be one of epic proportions. Border agents reportedly detained nearly 100,000 migrants along the southern border last month alone. That marks the highest total for the month of February since 2006. The numbers have now climbed so high that the administration is allowing facilities to house children to operate at 100 percent capacity, when our kids aren't even going back to school in many school districts around the country because of concerns for their safety. Forget that. The Biden administration is now allowing these facilities that house children to operate at 100 percent despite the COVID risk.

An amendment I offered would redirect unnecessary funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities and instead send it to the Office of Refugee Resettlement. This office is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, and this extra funding would help keep these children safe and healthy. Unfortunately, for these children, many of whom have endured long and dangerous journeys in the hands of human smugglers, our Democratic colleagues chose the National Endowment for the Humanities instead of these children in distress.

Well, the list of rejected amendments goes on and on.

Senator Scott of South Carolina offered an amendment to ensure States weren't fudging on the nursing home death count totals, like the disastrous situation developing in New York that we are just now learning about the magnitude of nursing home deaths that were covered up by the Cuomo administration. This amendment would have required States to certify the accuracy of COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes in order to assess funding for nursing home facility strike teams. Once again, a party-line vote blocked that amendment.

One of the highlights of this long and drawn-out process, which just left me scratching my head, was an amendment from Senator Cassidy, the Senator from Louisiana, that would have prevented stimulus checks being sent

to people in prison and one from Senator Cruz, my colleague from Texas, that would have stopped payments from going to people who are not even legally present in the United States. Both amendments were blocked in a party-line vote by Democrats.

Our colleague from Florida, Senator Rubio, offered an amendment to incentivize a safe return to in-person learning at our Nation's schools. The crux of it was simple: If schools wanted Federal funding, they should actually educate children in the classroom and do so safely, according to CDC guidelines; otherwise, why do they need this huge amount of extra money if they are not actually going to use it to educate our children? Well, our Democratic colleagues blocked that amendment too.

While Americans were sleeping, Senate Democrats stood in the way of numerous commonsense reforms to this behemoth of a partisan bill. They have proven, once again, this so-called COVID-19 relief bill has next to nothing to do with what is best for the country and everything to do with what is best for their liberal partisan agenda.

This bill includes a long list of liberal priorities that are completely unrelated to the crisis at hand. I think roughly 90 percent of it is unrelated to COVID-19. Blank checks for mismanaged union pension funds, funding for climate justice--whatever that is--backdoor money for Planned Parenthood, an exclusive paid leave program for bureaucrats, those are just some of the greatest hits in the vote- arama.

Even the portions of the bill that are related to the pandemic are completely out of proportion. The legislation provides $130 billion for schools when tens of billions of dollars that we have already appropriated last December remain to be spent.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, only $6.4 billion will be distributed through September of this year. The remaining $122 billion would trickle out the door through not just 2021 but through 2028.

Of course, there is the blue State bailout. Despite the fact that tax revenues have largely rebounded and many States are still sitting on piles of cash from previous COVID-19 relief bills, our Democratic friends want to send another $350 billion to State and local governments but not just on an equitable population-based formula. They rigged the formula to make sure blue States reap the biggest cash benefits.

We know this wasn't the only path forward. We worked, time and time again, this last year on five different occasions to show we can unite to provide COVID-19 relief to the American people.

We could have built on that record this year, which after listening to President Biden's inaugural speech, I had hoped we might do. The first legislation to pass during the Biden administration could have been a bipartisan pandemic relief bill with overwhelming support. We wouldn't have needed to go through the vote-arama or the abuse of the budget reconciliation process. We could have had a bill that supported the hardest hit families, got kids back at school, and helped expedite vaccination.

But those types of policies, obviously, weren't top of mind for our Democratic friends. They wanted to have a payday for the most radical element of their party at an absurdly high pricetag, which our children and grandchildren are going to be saddled with.

They assembled a laundry list of unrelated wasteful and downright partisan provisions and rejected even the most commonsense amendments offered by this side of the aisle.

Sadly, this legislation passed the House without a single Republican vote. It passed the Senate without a single Republican vote. And now, our Democratic friends are on track to write a $2 trillion check completely funded by deficit spending without even a trace of bipartisanship.

They don't have a figleaf to hide behind. This was a partisan bill intentionally. Either the President sold snake oil on Inauguration Day or he has already caved into the most radical elements of his own political party. Either way, it is bad news for the American people.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk, and I ask that it be reported.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate equally divided.

Mr. President, the United States is facing a brewing humanitarian crisis at the border. At the same time, we are experiencing a global pandemic. This motion will help make sure we are prepared.

In January 2021, the Border Patrol recorded about 75,000 encounters on the southwest land border. That is a 60-percent increase over the last year, which was just before the last major migrant surge.

The Department of Homeland Security is reportedly projecting that it will apprehend 117,000 unaccompanied children this year. The Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Refugee Resettlement are struggling to maintain enough bed space to shelter all of these unaccompanied children transferred into their custody. It is estimated the COVID-19 restrictions have reduced their capacity by about 40 percent.

The Biden administration has reactivated a facility at Carrizo Springs, TX, to handle this influx of unaccompanied children, and press reports indicate that an additional facility may be necessary.

So this motion, simply put, would commit the bill to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with instructions to provide adequate funding for the Office of Refugee Resettlement to address this brewing humanitarian crisis.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, this Saturday will mark 1 year since Congress passed our first response to the COVID-19 virus.

That legislation, you will recall, received overwhelming support. It passed by a vote of 96 to 1 here in the Senate and 415 to 2 in the House, and we know that it was not just a one-off. Each of the five pandemic relief bills that were

signed into law last year received overwhelming bipartisan support.

That is not to say that everybody was in perfect agreement about the size and shape of the bills. We had more than our fair share of disagreements along the way, but both sides of the aisle understood the most pressing challenges facing our country and the types of support that were needed to sustain that fight both when it came to public health and when it came to the economic fallout and recession that resulted: resources for hospitals and healthcare workers, support for the hardest hit families, assistance for small businesses, and, of course, the development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines. Not only did we agree on what should be in the bills, but we, actually, also agreed on what should not be in the bills.

We were all guided, I believe, by an understanding that the focus should remain on COVID-19 and that pandemic relief bills were no place to inject unrelated or partisan preferences, but now that our Democratic friends control the House and the Senate and the White House, they have tossed that principle in the trash.

The Democrats have drafted their so-called COVID-19 relief bill without the input, the ideas, or the support of a single Republican. Now, that is not because folks on this side of the aisle were unwilling. As I remember, there were 10 Republican Senators who met with President Biden at the White House and offered a $600 billion alternative that would enjoy broad bipartisan support. This partisan legislation was a choice, not a necessity--a choice, a conscious choice.

Last year, the House majority whip referred to this crisis as a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' That was Mr. Clyburn. The Democrats knew that a bipartisan bill would limit the scope of discussions of policies that were actually relevant to the pandemic. So, rather than maintain that relevance to the pandemic, they chose to go it alone. This opportunity to restructure, as Mr. Clyburn said, has been months in the making, and now that the Democrats have the numbers they need to make the law without having the support of anybody but their own party, they have tacked on an entire liberal wish list and tried to call it COVID-19 relief, but nobody believes it or should believe it.

You see, these are some of the things that are in the so-called COVID-19 relief bill of $1.9 trillion when hundreds of billions of dollars of money that we appropriated just in December haven't even been spent yet. Here is what is in the Trojan horse, otherwise known as the Democrats' COVID-19 relief bill: funding for climate justice. At a time when many Americans are asking ``When can I get the vaccine?'' and ``How long until my children can safely return to school?'' our Democratic colleagues are pushing funding to support President Biden's unilateral climate Executive orders.

And then there is the funding--the backdoor funding--for Planned Parenthood. It is responsible for the most abortions of any other organization in America. Now, that is a personal choice for people to make, but asking taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood so it can perform more abortions is simply irrelevant to COVID-19 relief. It is exploiting another emergency for special interest purposes.

This bill expands the criteria for the Paycheck Protection Program, one of the most successful parts of the CARES Act that we passed last March. It was designed specifically to keep small businesses afloat, but now Planned Parenthood can take advantage of the funding--something they were precluding from doing under bipartisan agreement previously.

There is another big political ally for our Democratic friends that would be newly eligible for these small business loans--the labor unions. So now labor unions can apply for and receive money that was otherwise previously directed toward mom-and-pop businesses so they could keep their doors open, so they could keep their employees on the payroll. But now it includes labor unions.

Many of the labor unions' pension plans in particular have been in dire financial straits for years, long before COVID-19 even existed. Up until now, our Democratic colleagues have not been able to find a way to bail out these mismanaged pension funds. As you can imagine, using taxpayer dollars to cover the mistakes of union bosses is incredibly unpopular, and that is because it is wrong. But the authors of this bill have found a couple of workarounds which they have tucked into this so-called pandemic relief bill.

In addition to making labor unions eligible for the paycheck protection loans, the COVID-19 relief bill also creates a taxpayer fund to bail out underfunded union pension funds. That is not to help the public generally; that is to help labor union members, which is certainly their issue. I understand why it is important, but I don't understand why my taxpayers in Texas should have to bail out underfunded labor pension funds in other States. Union bosses who have mismanaged these funds and made bad choices will be rewarded with a taxpayer-funded check.

While there is a range of provisions to line the pockets of our friends on the other side of the aisle across the country, the authors of this bill also tried to sneak in more localized fixes, two of which have already been dropped from this bill.

In one of the most audacious examples of tone-deaf Washington politics, one of these was an underground rail system in the Speaker's home State of California--an underground rail system. That has nothing to do with COVID-19.

The Bay Area Rapid Transit expansion has been in the works for years, and Californians have raised concerns over the rising cost. In 2018, it was projected to cost nearly $4.7 billion, and that estimate has already jumped to $6.9 billion from $4.7 billion.

Despite the fact that this rail system has absolutely nothing to do with the pandemic and would serve only the people of one of the wealthiest areas in the country, our Democratic friends provided more than $100 million for this project in their so-called COVID-19 relief bill. Well, fortunately, not any thanks to our Democratic friends who wrote the bill, this completely unrelated project has now been removed from the bill because it violates Senate rules. You are not supposed to be able to appropriate money and authorize transportation projects in a budget reconciliation bill. That is why it is gone, not because our Democratic friends were embarrassed or had second thoughts after it was pointed out to them the hypocrisy of including that in the bill but because it violates the Senate rules.

Another portion of the bill would have provided money for a bridge from New York to Canada. Let me think for a minute which Senator would have stuck money for a bridge from New York to Canada in the bill. Well, there are two Senators, one of whom is the majority leader from the State of New York. Well, that has now been struck by our colleagues because it received so much blowback. It was such an embarrassing, irresponsible money grab that it is no longer in the bill.

Well, we will see if this trend continues and more of the completely unrelated partisan projects are eliminated because the long list of unnecessary spending does not end there.

This legislation also establishes a bureaucrat bailout, an exclusive paid leave fund just for Federal employees. If their kids aren't in school full time because of the pandemic, these employees could take home up to $1,400 a week in paid leave. That is roughly equivalent to $70,000 a year, all to stay home and not work. And these benefits would last for months. Federal employees could take home up to 600 hours of paid leave until September 30 even though President Biden said every adult who wants to get vaccinated will be vaccinated by the end of May. This benefit, this ridiculous money grab, would last until the end of September, long after people had gained antibodies and immunity from COVID-19 as a result of having been vaccinated.

Across the country, only about 35 percent of school districts have returned to fully in-person instruction. If the parents of children at the other 65 percent of school districts happen to work for the Federal Government, they can claim these benefits. Even if a school offers in- person instruction but maintains the option to learn virtually, the parent can still get paid to stay home and not perform any work. Well, parents in my State who don't work for the Federal Government

aren't receiving these same benefits. This is clearly cherry-picking to benefit Federal employees, to pay them not to work.

I respect the work that Federal employees do. I respect the work that all government employees do. But to give them preferential treatment in the midst of this pandemic by paying them not to work and using tax dollars from other States and other places that don't enjoy that benefit is simply grossly unfair.

Over the last year, countless numbers of parents have balanced the impossible: work and remote learning for their children. It has been hard. I understand that. Many parents turned their kitchen tables into makeshift offices and classroom spaces until their children were able to physically return to school. Today, less than 7 percent of the school districts in Texas are fully remote. Seven percent are fully remote, and two-thirds are fully in-person in my State. They have found a way to safely return to the classroom. There is no reason why the Texans who have made that tough juggling act, working and learning remotely, should now have to pay Federal employees who have not had to make that tough choice.

It is simply false advertising to call this a COVID-19 relief bill. It is deceptive and outrageously so. Only $160 billion dollars--8 percent of the total cost--is directly related to combating COVID-19. Eight percent. The rest of the bill, as I have tried to point out, is a variety of--it is a grab bag, really, of partisan priorities, wasteful spending, and counterproductive policy.

What is worse, this restructuring, according to Mr. Clyburn's language, to fit the vision of the Democratic Party will cost taxpayers nearly $2 trillion. That is on top of the $4 trillion we already spent last year. Two trillion more.

Well, somebody is going to have to pay that money back, and I fear it will not be us because we will be long gone. It will be our children and grandchildren, and at this rate of reckless spending, our great- grandchildren will have to be the ones to pay the money back.

This bill is not the answer to the real challenges that face our country posed by the pandemic. We have shown our willingness to work together in a bipartisan way to enthusiastically support the need to provide real relief both from the public health consequences and the economic fallout associated with the virus, but this bill doesn't even attempt to do that.

Fortunately, as a result of the work we did last year, including last December--and by the way, only about 20 percent of the money that we appropriated just a few weeks ago--actually, a couple of months ago in December--has actually been spent. Only about 20 percent has been spent, and here we are being asked to appropriate $1.9 trillion more.

But the good news is, the money we spent last year is having real results. The money we invested in treatments and research and development of vaccines and now the distribution of vaccines--it is actually making a real difference. We are vaccinating roughly 3 million people a day in America. More than 70 million people have had shots in arms, and we are doing our best to try to get it in people's arms as fast as we safely can. President Biden said we will get that job done by the end of May. That is wonderful news.

The other wonderful news is that unemployment rates are going down and State revenue is going back up. School districts across the country have safely resumed in-person learning. One in five adults in America has now received a dose of the vaccine, and a third vaccine has now been approved, so that number will climb faster and faster and faster.

Every day we are moving closer to the light at the end of the tunnel, and now is not the time to squander the good will and trust that the American people have had in us to be good stewards of the public health and our economy by engaging in this sort of embarrassing partisan exercise.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, this week our Democratic colleagues are striving to break Congress's perfect record of bipartisan pandemic relief. Last year, five relief packages were signed into law, each with overwhelming bipartisan support. No bill received fewer than 90 votes here in the Senate, and 1 even passed unanimously. The reason why these bills received such broad support is because they address the crisis at hand in a targeted manner; no controversial provisions or unrelated partisan priorities, just clear-cut relief for the American people.

As I said, the perfect record of commonsense, bipartisan relief packages will apparently end this week.

The bill our Democratic colleagues are preparing to bring to the Senate floor has been drafted by only one party. As you can imagine, that process lends itself to a sort of partisan Christmas tree decorating. Democrats have taken the framework of the COVID relief bill and added a range of liberal priorities that have absolutely nothing to do with COVID-19: a Silicon Valley subway system, a blank check for mismanaged union pension plans, a bridge from New York to Canada, and funding for climate justice.

It is no surprise that this bill passed the House on a strict party- line vote. But the COVID-19 relief label isn't fooling anybody. This is a partisan wish list that does more to advance a political agenda than to respond to the legitimate public health and economic needs of our country. That is why our Democratic colleagues have chosen to abuse the budget reconciliation process in order to make a law.

Based on the pricetag of this bill, you would think it was March 2020 all over again. Despite the fact that we have made serious headway in vaccinations, our economy is recovering by leaps and bounds, and all signs show we are moving toward that light at the end of the tunnel, our Democratic colleagues are prepared to spend another $1.9 trillion of borrowed money. That is about half as much as all previous bills combined.

What is even more concerning than the cost is how the money is going to be spent. One great example is funding for education. So far, Congress has provided more than $110 billion for K-12 education, including $68 billion in the relief bill that was signed into law in December, just a couple of months ago. Schools in Texas have used this money to update air filtration systems, purchase personal protective equipment,

and implement regular disinfecting so students and teachers can safely return to the classroom. After all, we know in-person instruction is best for our children.

I have had sections of my State where at least a third of the lower income students don't have dependable access to broadband, much less the kind of supervision that they would need in order to continue their learning. Study after study has shown that kids have fallen behind while learning virtually, especially in foundational subjects like math and reading.

The learning deficit is even greater for students of color and those in high-poverty communities. One study found that, for math, White students began the school year about 1 to 3 months behind in learning while students of color were more likely to be 3 to 5 months behind. And the impact on our students isn't purely academic. As we know, there are serious mental, social, and emotional tolls to be paid as well.

We need our schools to open, and, of course, we need to do so safely. The experts tell us that not only is that possible, but it has already been done in States across the country. The Centers for Disease Control published a report in January that found: ``There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission.'' The lead author of that report affirmed that even in places with high infection rates, there is no evidence that schools will transmit the virus at a higher rate than the general community. In short, schools are not a breeding ground for COVID-19 as long as appropriate precautions are taken, and they can reopen safely.

The good news is there is already plenty of funding to make that happen. In December, the Centers for Disease Control estimated schools would need about $22 billion to open safely. As of February 9, of the $68 billion that was provided for K-12 schools in the combined relief packages, only about $5 billion has been spent. So $68 billion has been provided, and only $5 billion has been spent.

Despite clear evidence that, one, kids are struggling with virtual learning; two, schools can safely reopen with the right precautions; and, three, that there is plenty of funding to help schools implement these measures, our Democratic colleagues are prepared to spend another $130 billion for K-12 education without any sort of incentive or requirement for children to return safely to the classroom.

Sadly, many of our schoolchildren are coming up on the 1-year anniversary of their virtual learning. Unfortunately, there seems to be very little momentum for letting those students return to the classroom, and, unfortunately, by default, they are falling further behind.

Since most of the existing funds remain to be spent, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bulk of spending of this new proposed funding would occur next year and beyond. In other words, this isn't an emergency relief bill designed to deal with the present need; this is about spending money in 2021, after which, hopefully, virtually everybody in the United States is vaccinated and we have established herd immunity.

Only $6.4 billion would be distributed through September of this year, and the remaining $122 billion would trickle out the door through not just 2021 but through 2028. That is, the majority of the education funding in the so-called and misnamed COVID-19 relief bill wouldn't even be touched until the pandemic has been put in the rearview mirror.

Now, I have advocated for funding to help schools prepare for a safe return to the classroom, and, of course, the experts, as I said, have told us that more than enough funding is already available to make that happen. So I ask: What is the rationale for asking the taxpayers to foot another $130 billion bill if there is no need for that funding in the first place? And I would add to that, this is not money that actually exists. This will be money borrowed from future generations that is added to the deficit and to our debt. There is certainly no excuse to ram this and a range of other partisan priorities through Congress without the support of a single Republican.

It was January 20 when I thought that President Biden gave a very eloquent and appropriate speech at his inauguration, talking about the need for the Nation to heal, for the divisions to heal, and for unity, but doing this partisan reconciliation bill when there is no demonstrated need for this deficit spending is not healing the divisions in our country or promoting unity.

Saturday will mark 1 year since the first COVID-19 response bill was signed into law. Since then we have, tragically, lost more than a half million Americans; families have struggled with job losses; small businesses have closed their doors; and children have fallen further and further behind.

The list of hardships endured over the past year is long indeed, but now our colleagues across the aisle are trying to capitalize on that pain by passing the so-called and misnamed COVID-19 relief bill that does more to advance partisan goals than to bring an end to this national nightmare. It does nothing to get our kids back in school or our American workers back on the job.

It doles out taxpayer dollars for favored infrastructure projects-- these are colloquially called earmarks--like the bridge in the majority leader's home State of New York and a subway system in the Speaker's home State of California. What do those have to do with COVID-19? Where is the emergency there? Why should we borrow money from future generations to fund these infrastructure projects that have nothing to do with the pandemic?

We can deal with infrastructure, and we should, going forward, but opportunistically exploiting the public's concern about COVID-19 in order to fund these infrastructure projects in New York and California is simply inexcusable.

(Mr. LUJAN assumed the Chair.)

Only 1 percent of the funding in this massive $1.9 trillion bill goes toward vaccination efforts. We all understand that vaccinating the American people is the key for ending this crisis. So far--and I am sure I am a day or so behind--a couple of days ago, we vaccinated 68 million people--68 million vaccinations, perhaps. Some of them involved two shots. And we are vaccinating people at the rate of 3 million shots a day. That is really, really encouraging. But only 1 percent of the funding in this $1.9 trillion bill goes toward that eventual key to unlocking the future.

As I said, every penny that is spent on pandemic response is borrowed from our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. Somebody is going to have to pay the money back--not us, not now, apparently. We are going to borrow the money, add to deficits and debt.

As Larry Summers and others have said, we are even risking inflation by throwing so much money into the economy so quickly, at a time when it is growing at more than 4 percent a year. And we are not, if this effort is successful, spending this money responsibly. Being responsible means doing what is needed--no more, no less--to bring this pandemic to an end and get this country back on its feet.

I think this bill is a shameful waste of taxpayer dollars. And it is outrageous that it is entitled the COVID-19 relief bill when so little of this bill actually deals with the pandemic. As we say, where I come from, if you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig.

Madam President, last Friday, I joined Governor Abbott, fellow Members of the Texas congressional delegation, and several State and local leaders and joined President Biden on his first trip to Texas since taking office on January 20. We only wish it could have come under better circumstances.

Texans, of course, are still reeling from the deadly winter freeze that crippled our critical infrastructure and left millions without power and water. Thousands of Texans are still without clean water and under a boil instruction, and countless others are dealing with the damage caused by burst pipes.

I truly appreciate the President and the First Lady coming to Houston to learn more about the ongoing response and recovery efforts, and I thank the President for answering the request of Senator Cruz, Governor Abbott, and myself to order a national disaster declaration.

During times of crisis, Texans are always eager to lend a hand to their neighbors, and the last couple of weeks have proved to be no exception. I am always encouraged by those heartwarming stories of folks helping others in ways big and small: welcoming people into their homes, checking on their elderly neighbors, delivering hot meals to those in need, and much more.

So I am glad the President and First Lady were able to see the incredible work also of one of the Houston area's most reliable friends, and that is the Houston Food Bank. For more than 40 years, the Houston Food Bank has fought hunger in the Houston region through a variety of programs serving Texans of all ages. When COVID-19 hit last year, the need for that assistance skyrocketed, as you might imagine.

I was able to visit the food bank last summer to learn more about how they have adjusted their operations to keep up with the demand, while implementing precautions to keep their volunteers safe and healthy. So I was glad to join the President and First Lady to learn more about the incredible ways that the Houston Food Bank has continued to serve the community in the wake of this winter storm.

As I have said before and, as the President reiterated on Friday in Houston, there is no red team, there is no blue team during a time of crisis.

FEMA officials have said that disaster response efforts work best when they are locally executed, State managed, and federally supported, and I agree that is the appropriate formula. This structure gives local officials the ability to cater response efforts to their specific communities while tapping into the range of resources available from the State and Federal Government.

I want to assure my fellow Texans that I and the entire Texas delegation here in Congress will continue to do everything we can to be responsive to the needs that they have. Part of that, though, is through rapid mobilization of resources. After Governor Abbott, as I said, made the formal request for an emergency disaster declaration, Senator Cruz and I sent a letter to President Biden urging him to grant that request. And, as I said, he did so without delay.

So this formal disaster declaration has allowed our State to receive a range of resources to respond to the crisis, including blankets, bottled water, generators, and additional fuel. These resources were vital to sustaining hospital operations and supporting the most vulnerable Texans while power and water were being restored.

Senator Cruz and I also wrote to the President urging him to grant the Governor's request for a major disaster declaration and all types of public and individual assistance for each of Texas's 254 counties. A major disaster declaration opens up even more Federal resources to help communities and individuals recover in the aftermath of an emergency like this. It can include everything from housing assistance for folks who are unable to stay in their home due to water leakage and burst pipes to unemployment assistance to crisis counseling.

So far, President Biden has approved the major disaster declaration for 126 counties, and I know State and local leaders are working with the administration to seek approval for the remaining counties.

Insurance industry leaders believe this could be the costliest weather event in our State's history, and we have to do everything we can to lessen the burden on Texas families.

Of course, my staff and I are in close contact with State and local leaders who are managing and executing the response, and we are constantly looking for ways to assist and move the recovery along.

In the aftermath of these widespread outages, of course, two questions jump out at you: One is, What happened? And, two, how do we prevent it from ever happening again?

We know now, at least so far, that there wasn't a single point of failure. But where it has to do with the power, this was the result of failures in equipment across the State that weren't properly winterized. Natural gas lines, wind turbines, and other power equipment froze, cutting off a huge percentage of our power generation capacity. The remaining generators were overloaded by the sky-high demand of these subzero temperatures, and much of Texas went through rolling blackouts and more.

This storm claimed the lives of nearly 80 Texans. It left millions without power and water for several days. It destroyed homes and businesses and created a sense of fear across the State.

We need to do what we can now to ensure that Texas's critical infrastructure will be able to withstand anything Mother Nature sends our way. It is not just about Texas. It is really about the critical infrastructure throughout the United States.

I am working on a measure to build grid resiliency, so we can maintain reliable power throughout any type of extreme weather. Whether it is a polar vortex or a heat wave or a hurricane or tornado, our grids and energy sources across the country must be able to operate without disruption. This should be a bipartisan priority for folks from every corner of the United States.

In Texas, we are accustomed to our infrastructure being able to withstand the high temperatures we are used to during the summer, but not the rare subzero temperatures that paralyzed the State 2 weeks ago. In other parts of the country, grids may face the opposite problem: They are able to operate during freezing temperatures but not during a heat wave. I am trying to work on a way to get funding to the States to help build grid resiliency in a way that makes sense for each of those specific needs.

Our Nation has had issues with funding grid resiliency and modernization efforts, and this is a good opportunity to make an investment in that infrastructure. My hope is that this will be a big bipartisan effort, including fellow Members of the Texas delegation and colleagues on both sides of the aisle here in the Senate. We need to do everything we can as Americans and Senators to strengthen and modernize our grid before it is tested again. Team Texas will do everything we can to get our neighbors on the road to recovery and prevent us from experiencing widespread outages in the future.

In conclusion, I want to thank everyone who has supported our State in ways big and small over the last couple of weeks and who will no doubt work with us in our efforts to come back stronger in the days that lie ahead.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, we have had some bizarre weather in my State in the last week or so. We are still reeling from a deadly winter storm that hit all 254 counties in the State of Texas last week.

The snowstorm brought snow, ice, and prolonged subfreezing temperatures. We don't have temperatures below zero in Texas--or at least we haven't for a long, long time, but we did last week. As a result, it paralyzed much of our critical infrastructure, leaving millions without electricity, leaving them without heat, and leaving them without running water for days on end.

The good news is that power has now been restored for the vast majority of Texans, and cities are slowly lifting water boil notices as water filtration systems come back online.

But a number of families are still facing outages, and as we have seen during previous disasters, low-income and minority communities are the hardest hit. Our top priority is to restore power and clean water to every single Texan.

Throughout this episode--this tragedy, really--my staff and I have been in contact with local, State, and, of course, Federal officials to determine what kinds of things we can do to help and how we can mobilize resources as soon as possible. As recovery efforts continue in the coming days and weeks, I will continue to try to do that.

This is not unlike what we have to do periodically for hurricanes that seem to find their way to the State of Texas. But in this case we know that some of the problem was not an act of nature; it was a failure to anticipate these subfreezing, subzero cold temperatures. So we have got to ask not only ``What happened?'' but ``How can we prevent it from happening again in the future?''

As I said, we experience, from time to time, hurricanes, occasionally tornadoes and tropical storms or record-low temperatures, but we cannot allow our infrastructure to go offline for days on end.

I want to thank the countless Texans who supported each other during this crisis. There are those that have gone above and beyond the call of duty in their official capacities, whether it is as first responders, emergency dispatchers, utility and energy workers, healthcare workers--the list goes on and on.

But there are also the unsung heroes--those who invited neighbors into their homes, delivered hot meals to those in need, checked on an elderly neighbor, those who towed vehicles stuck in the snow, and so much more.

I just want to assure all of my constituents that we are in this together, and we will do everything we can not only to find out how this happened but what we can do to make sure it never happens again.

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