Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the comments of my colleague from Delaware with respect to Senator Enzi. He is absolutely right. Senator Enzi, who will be laid to rest in Wyoming, was a wonderful public servant and someone who there weren't any pretensions about him. He was a ``what you see is what you get'' type of individual, somebody who worked hard every day, was solutions- oriented, results-oriented, and brought with him a humble spirit and demeanor that we all benefited from here, and something that I think all of us could aspire to here as well.

And I was reminded as my colleague from Delaware was speaking, of a verse in the Old Testament Book of Micah, where it says:

He has told you, old man, what is good. And what does the

Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and

to walk humbly with your God.

And I think that certainly describes Senator Mike Enzi. And we think about him and his family and keep them in our prayers as they prepare for that ceremony tomorrow.

Broadband

Mr. President, as a Senator from a rural State and a member and former chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, expanding broadband access to rural areas has long been a priority of mine. Given our economy's increasing reliance on broadband in the digital age, it makes sense, as part of this infrastructure bill, that we are prioritizing expanding broadband access to unserved areas.

But I have to say I am concerned, because a lot of the money allocated for expanding access--more than $42 billion--would be funneled not through the Federal Communications Commission, where the majority of the Government's broadband experience resides, but through the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA, which has previously fumbled attempts to bring broadband access to more communities.

Back in 2009, a government stimulus bill allocated $4.7 billion to NTIA to expand broadband access in rural and underserved areas. It didn't go very well. The Agency struggled with implementation. There were serious issues with a number of the projects the Agency approved. In fact, 14 projects were either temporarily or permanently halted.

Other projects resulted in a significant amount of overbuilding, meaning that they resulted in the construction of additional broadband infrastructure in areas that already had access to reliable broadband. A Government Accountability Office report found that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration lacked the data it needed to determine whether areas were genuinely underserved.

More recently, just last month, the NTIA called for ``volunteers''-- volunteers--to evaluate grant proposals. That is right. The NTIA has called for volunteers to help determine how to allocate the $1.5 billion Congress has provided to NTIA over the past year to improve broadband access.

Now, we should think long and hard before giving the Agency the authority to administer more than $42 billion in grants when it has to call on volunteers to help allocate a tiny fraction of that money.

NTIA simply has not demonstrated its ability to administer a grant program of this size and complexity. A much better alternative would be to put the Federal Communications Commission in charge of disbursing broadband funds.

In contrast to NTIA which has just 157 employees, the Federal Communications Commission employs more than 1,400 people. It has the staffing resources it needs in-house to administer this grant program. The FCC also, crucially, has the necessary expertise to identify truly unserved areas so that Federal dollars go to communities with the most significant lack of broadband access.

I have proposed an amendment to the infrastructure legislation before us that would strike the NTIA grant program and redirect that money to the bipartisan legislation I have introduced--the Rural Connectivity Advancement Program Act.

The Rural Connectivity Advancement Program Act would mandate that 10- percent of the net proceeds of any spectrum auctions mandated by the Federal Government go to building out broadband networks with the goal of strengthening connectivity in rural and Tribal areas. Redirecting the proposed $42 billion in grants to this program would allow the Federal Communications Commission to administer these funds, which would make it more likely that this funding would actually go to meet the broadband needs of unserved communities.

On a related note, I have also introduced an amendment to strike a provision of the infrastructure bill that would allow NTIA to make changes to the formula that Congress is providing to determine what areas of the country are eligible for grants.

Why is Congress bothering to put funding guardrails in this legislation if it is going to allow the NTIA to change them at will?

As I have said, NTIA lacks adequate expertise when it comes to identifying what areas of the country are truly unserved. And I am not sure why we give NTIA the authority to change Congress's guidelines and possibly further diminish the chances that this grant program will deliver on its objective.

Unfortunately, just yesterday, the Senate voted down an amendment offered by the ranking member of the Commerce Committee that would have provided critical safeguards should NTIA establish this program. The proponents of this legislation have reportedly received assurances from the Secretary of Commerce about how NTIA will implement the bill.

If this bill is enacted, the Secretary should expect close scrutiny from the Commerce Committee and be prepared to explain how she will prevent a repeat of the Agency's past missteps. As I said, there have been problems in the past with government broadband dollars going to overbuilding of broadband in areas that already have a substantial amount of access, and I am concerned that this bill could result in the same problem.

In addition to the NTIA grant program, the infrastructure bill would authorize the Department of Agriculture to improve grant funding of areas where 50 percent of the homes lack adequate access to broadband services. While this may sound like an appropriate percentage, the truth is that a grant for building out broadband in an area where 50 percent of the homes already have adequate access is likely to result in significant overbuilding at taxpayer expense.

We seem to have forgotten that Federal resources are--or at least should be--limited. There are plenty of areas where broadband access is almost nonexistent and where there is almost no available broadband infrastructure to build on. And those are the first places where we need to direct available government funding, which is why I am offering an amendment to change the formula to require that proposed grants cover an area where at least 80 percent of homes lack broadband access. This bipartisan amendment deserves a vote.

I am also concerned that we are advancing this bill without any of the provisions, particularly the broadband components, going through regular committee consideration. The Commerce Committee has a long history of

advancing legislation to expand access to broadband services. Rushed legislative efforts that bypass the committees of jurisdiction and the subject matter expertise that they offer could lead to billions of dollars being spent with little to show.

I am appreciative of the efforts of the bipartisan negotiators who crafted this bill. I know they share my goal of targeting broadband resources to those most in need. I am very pleased that my Telecommunications Skilled Workforce Act amendment received a vote the other day and passed the Senate by an overwhelmingly bipartisan margin. This amendment would help ensure that we develop the workforce necessary to meet the demands of the next generation of mobile broadband internet, 5G.

But I hope--I hope--that we will also have a chance to vote on my other amendments--those I just mentioned--and amendments being offered by my colleagues. Infrastructure legislation is tremendously important to our economy, and we need to take the time to get this legislation right. And that means giving Senators, who are not part of the working group, adequate time to offer amendments and, hopefully, improve this product. We have made some progress on that front this week, and I hope to make more before finishing this bill.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

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

Mr. President, around here, it is Members of Congress who typically get the spotlight. When we talk about a bill getting passed, for example, you usually hear about the

Members who introduced and pushed for the bill. You don't usually hear about the staffers.

But none of us in Congress works alone. We are supported by dedicated staffers who spend long days and oftentimes nights and weekends working to serve our constituents and our country.

Today, I want to talk about one of those staffers, my whip office chief of staff who is leaving the Hill after 26 years of government service.

Nick Rossi has been with me since 2013, when I became the ranking member of the Commerce Committee. He came on as deputy staff director and took over as staff director 2 years later.

There isn't one thing that we did in my years as Commerce ranking member and chair that wasn't at least partially owing to Nick Rossi: the 2018 FAA reauthorization; the FAST Act; Coast Guard legislation; FCC bills; broadband legislation; spectrum legislation; section 230 reform legislation, known as SESTA-FOSTA; legislation to reduce the number of annoying robocalls; other consumer protection legislation like the FTC Consumer Fairness Review Act; legislation to advance 5G; and the list goes on.

Nick came to my staff after an already illustrious career on the Hill. He had served as chief counsel at the Senate Judiciary Committee, as chief counsel and chief investigator on the Commerce Committee, and as staff director on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

But his career in government started much earlier. He actually started his government service in the FBI, applying on a whim when he couldn't join the U.S. Attorney's Office because of a hiring freeze.

As is typical for Nick, he graduated first in his class at the FBI Academy and then went on to spend 11 years in the FBI as a special agent, a supervisory special agent, unit chief, associate legal counsel, and media spokesperson.

That sounds like a lot for 11 years but not so much when you know Nick.

I mentioned that he graduated first in his class at the FBI Academy. He also graduated with honors from Notre Dame and from Harvard Law School, where he was in the drama society with our colleague Ted Cruz.

I don't think I have ever asked Nick about any issue and gotten anything less than a thoroughly informed answer, whether the subject was technically in his area of expertise or not.

I will never forget when he accompanied me and former Senator Bill Nelson to the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead, SD. This is a lab where scientists are conducting research in particle physics and the expansion of the universe. So it is pretty complicated stuff.

Well, apparently not to Nick. He was in the car with us, and he was throwing out technical formulas and the finer points of physics and cosmology with the ease he might use when discussing the lunch menu in the Dirksen cafeteria.

When asked how he knew all this stuff--he definitely didn't major in physics, and space wasn't his issue area--he just said it was a hobby. Trust Nick to be flirting with particle physics as a hobby.

But while Nick may often be the smartest person in the room, he is also the most humble. He is often the last to speak. He listens. He asks questions, sometimes maybe when he doesn't really need to. And he gives thoughtful, wise counsel.

It has been clear over the last few days as staffers across the Senate learned that Nick was leaving just how respected his voice is in the Senate.

I have had more than one committee staff director talk to me about how he or she learned to run a committee from Nick.

And I know a lot of senior staffers--inside my office but outside of it as well--who will tell you that when they are facing a challenge, the first person that they go to to provide a sounding board is Nick.

And Nick always makes himself available. He is uniformly generous with his time and knowledge, and he treats everyone the same, whether the individual in question is a staff assistant or a chief of staff.

He has brought out the best in every team I have seen him work with, whether at the Commerce Committee or in the whip office.

Nick has been chief of staff in my whip office for 2 years--2 very eventful years. Through it all, Nick has been a steady presence in the whip office and in the Senate. No matter the crisis, Nick is calm and collected, and he inspires that calm in others, although I do hear that it is a different story when he is watching Notre Dame football. The word is that there is a lot of ranting, pacing, and yelling at the TV, but I have not observed that.

Above all, Nick is a character guy, which matters a lot to me. He is a man of honor, integrity, and principle.

I never have to worry that Nick is going to cut corners or bend the rules. He is always going to do things the right way, and there is nothing more important than that.

I can't talk about Nick without also mentioning his commitment to his family. His pride in his kids always shines through, and just as he is never too busy to talk to a staffer who is having a problem, he is always ready to take a break from his work to help his daughter Elena with her math homework--another subject Nick didn't major in but is, of course, really good at--or to build swords and helmets and bows and arrows with his son Johnny.

I am very grateful to his wife Katherine and to Elena and Johnny for sharing him with us for all these years.

And I am very happy that there are fewer late nights in his future so that he can get in some more time with his family.

I realize that Nick may be starting to sound a little superhuman here, so let me just say that while he is a man of many talents who has not only not successfully repaired the family's microwave and dishwasher but is also known for building a balloon arch in the shape of a shark for his kids' school, I am reliably informed that he is not a good cook.

And I am pretty sure that ``not'' was bold and underlined.

But, seriously, Nick is one in a million, and it has been my privilege to have him lead the team in the whip office.

His absence will be sorely felt by me, by my staff, and throughout Capitol Hill, and I hope he won't mind the occasional phone call to pick his brain on some of the issues that are facing the Senate.

Nick, thank you for your service, and God bless you in all your future undertakings. Wherever you land next, they will be lucky to have you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).

I ask for the yeas and nays.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).

Mr. President, I would associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues who have just been here acknowledging the heroic work done by the Capitol Police on January 6. Clearly, they are very deserving of all the recognition that they have received. What they went through on that very harrowing day I think is a reminder to all of us of the importance of the work they do day in and day out and just the challenge they face defending this Capitol and people who work in it. I, like my colleagues, am enormously grateful and just want to join in recognizing that with the award they just received.

I also point out that we are in the midst of a debate here on a bill that was negotiated in a bipartisan way. It is great to see Republicans and Democrats working together, talking together, coming up with solutions, whether we agree with them or not. But the fact that there are people sitting down across the table from each other and working through some of these big issues that we face here, one of which, obviously, in this country is maintaining a strong infrastructure, is encouraging, and in many ways, it is refreshing to see that happening here.

Nomination of Tracy Stone-Manning

Mr. President, it is sort of ironic, too, that in the light of that spirit of bipartisanship, that we continue to see nominees brought to the floor who don't reflect that spirit.

The Senate voted last week to bring Tracy Stone-Manning's nomination to the Senate floor. It is difficult to know exactly what President Biden was thinking when he decided to nominate Ms. Stone-Manning for Director of the Bureau of Land Management. Perhaps the administration's vetting wasn't thorough enough. Otherwise, it is pretty difficult to understand why the President would nominate an individual with ties to an ecoterrorist organization--an ecoterrorist organization--to head the Bureau of Land Management.

That is not all. She was actually involved in a tree-spiking plot during her time in graduate school, sending a threatening letter to the U.S. Forest Service at the request of one of the individuals involved in spiking trees in an Idaho forest.

Tree spiking, as many know, involves hammering spikes into the trunks of trees to cripple chain saws or the equipment at the sawmill where the trees are processed. It poses a significant threat to logging and mill equipment, but most seriously, it poses a threat to human life.

In a famous incident, a worker at a lumber mill in California was engaged in splitting logs when his saw hit a spiked log and the saw exploded. I will let a Washington Post story covering the incident speak for itself, and I quote from the Washington Post, as follows:

He was nearly three feet away when the log hit his saw and

the saw exploded. One half of the blade stuck in the log. The

other half hit Alexander in the head, tearing through his

safety helmet and face shield. His face was slashed from eye

to chin. His teeth were smashed and his jaw was cut in half.

Alexander had never even heard of a sabotage tactic called

tree spiking until he became a victim of ``eco-terrorism.''

Someone who objected to tree cutting had imbedded a

huge steel spike in the log that violently jammed the saw.

Then the Washington Post continued, and I quote again:

Tree spikes are among the most vicious of the strategies.

While the tree is still in the forest, the spike is driven in

at an angle so the head is hidden in the bark. It can shatter

a chain saw on impact, sending pieces of razor-sharp steel

flying.

It is very hard for me to believe that we are seriously considering confirming an individual to head the Bureau of Land Management who was in any way involved with tree spiking.

Furthermore, Ms. Stone-Manning apparently initially refused to cooperate with the subsequent investigation into the tree-spiking incident, only coming clean after it became clear that she could face criminal charges for her role in the incident. Equally troubling is the less-than-forthright response that she provided to the Senate on her nominee questionnaire about whether or not she had ever been investigated by a law enforcement organization.

Ms. Stone-Manning's involvement in the tree-spiking incident is not the only reason to be concerned that she has extremist views. As a graduate student, she also argued for population control, in one instance referring to a child as an ``environmental hazard.'' Last year, she took advantage of Twitter to promote an article her husband wrote in which he expressed satisfaction at the idea of seeing homes people have built in forests burn in fires.

President Obama's first Bureau of Land Management Director withdrew his support for Ms. Stone-Manning's nomination over her involvement in the tree-spiking plot. A Deputy Director at the BLM under President Obama also expressed his concern over the nomination, noting:

Much of the focus seems to be whether this is a Democrat or

Republican thing, but the lens I look at this through is as a

38-year career person in both agencies. . . . [Y]ou need the

career employees to implement your agenda successfully across

the West. Your leader has got to be respected by career

employees and across the landscape, in both blue and red

states.

His point is well-taken. How are BLM employees and the many Americans who regularly interact with the Bureau of Land Management going to feel about working with Ms. Stone-Manning? Our public lands are used for a variety of purposes, including recreation, livestock grazing, and timber harvesting. What kind of attitude should we expect from Ms. Stone-Manning to display toward timber harvesting? Is this really the best President Biden can do when it comes to the Director of the Bureau of Land Management?

As 75 House Republicans said in a letter to President Biden urging him to withdraw the nomination, ``There is no doubt that someone with this history of extreme, violent views should not be in a position of authority at an agency responsible for managing 245 million acres of federal lands and 700 million acres of mineral estate.''

I wish I could say that Ms. Stone-Manning's nomination is an aberration, but, in fact, President Biden has nominated a number of candidates with extremist views for various offices.

Last week, we voted on his nominee to head U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a nominee who failed to receive even a single bipartisan vote in committee, due in part to her refusal to say she won't completely bypass Congress when fashioning policies to deal with those who are in the United States unlawfully.

Then there is the President's nominee for head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, David Chipman, whose main interest seems to be targeting law-abiding gun owners and who has communicated a clear disdain for gun owners in public remarks. This nominee was also apparently the subject of a complaint for making racist remarks while working at ATF.

Then there are the multiple President Biden nominees now serving in the Department of Justice who have publicly expressed their support for defunding the police. That is right--President Biden filled key posts at the Justice Department, the Department charged with enforcing the law and prosecuting criminals, with individuals who have gone on the record with their support for defunding the police.

I suppose it is no real surprise that President Biden nominated an individual to the Bureau of Land Management who once referred to a child as an ``environmental hazard'' when you consider who he nominated to head up the Department of Health and Human Services.

HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra's rabidly pro-abortion views put him far to the left of the majority of Americans. Polls consistently show that a strong majority of Americans believe that there should be at least some restrictions on abortion. President Biden's HHS Secretary doesn't seem to support any restriction on abortion, and if he does, I would sure like to hear about them. During his time in the House of Representatives, Secretary Becerra repeatedly voted against banning partial-birth abortion, an abortion procedure so heinous that I think most Americans would rightfully shrink from seeing it performed on an animal, let alone a human being.

As I said, given that, I suppose it is not hard to believe that President Biden nominated an individual to the Bureau of Land Management who once described a child as an ``environmental hazard.''

President Biden tends to present himself as a moderate and someone who will bring people together. He said in his inaugural address: ``I pledge this to you: I will be a President for all Americans.'' In practice, however, too often he has seemed to be a President for the far-left wing of the Democratic Party.

I hope that my Democratic colleagues will think twice before confirming Ms. Stone-Manning as head of the Bureau of Land Management. Involvement with ecoterrorism should be a disqualifying factor for heading up this Agency.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).

Mr. President, it is good to see the Senate taking up a genuinely bipartisan bill this week. A group of Members from both parties have spent weeks developing this legislation, and we saw the result of their work in the bipartisan support for proceeding to this bill.

Now, we need to let that bipartisan process continue. We need to give Members who weren't a part of the bipartisan group a chance to weigh in, and that means making sure that we have a robust amendment process.

I know the majority leader is eager to get through this legislation and on to the Democrats' next piece of what is partisan legislation, and that is a $3\1/2\ trillion tax-and-spending spree, but

that is not a good reason for rushing this infrastructure bill through the Senate.

This is an enormous bill. It is more than 2,700 pages long, and the legislative text was just released last night. To start with, Members need time to digest this legislation, and then Members need the opportunity to offer amendments.

The bill before us today is a genuinely bipartisan bill, and I am very grateful for the tireless efforts of the Members who put in so many long days and nights--and weekends, I might add--to get us to this point.

Like a lot of our colleagues, I spent the weekend here in Washington as the bipartisan group worked through many final drafting issues, and I appreciate the fact that the members of the group took the time to get the bill as right as possible before introducing it.

But this legislation was still put together by only a handful of Senators. And unlike traditional highway bills, there are major pieces of this legislation that haven't been through the rigor of a committee process.

So all Members deserve the chance to weigh in. A number of Senators have raised legitimate concerns about this legislation, such as whether the proposed pay-fors are sufficient to keep this legislation from driving up our debt, and they deserve to have the chance to air those concerns and offer possible solutions.

Infrastructure legislation is some of the most essential legislation that we consider. Commerce in this country depends on the strength of our infrastructure, from up-to-date electric grids to well-maintained airports and train tracks, ports and waterways, and roads and bridges.

We need to get this legislation right, and that means giving Members ample time to examine the details of the bill, and it means giving Members the chance to address any problems in the bill through a meaningful amendment process. We shouldn't sacrifice adequate time on this bill merely because the Democratic leader would like to spend next week jamming a 100-percent partisan piece of legislation through the U.S. Senate.

Let's honor the bipartisan process that has gotten us this far by finishing this infrastructure bill with a robust, bipartisan amendment process.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).

Mr. President, amendment No. 2162 would aim to address the workforce needs of the telecommunications industry and increase the number of workers available to deploy 5G technology and broadband services to rural areas across the Nation.

In order to reap the benefits of 5G, we must have a skilled workforce in place to deploy the infrastructure necessary to support this new technology.

Importantly, 5G technology will require not just traditional cell phone towers, but small antennas called small cells that can often be attached to existing infrastructure, like utility poles or buildings. Wireless providers will need to install roughly 800,000 small cells around the Nation to support this nationwide 5G network. And some estimates suggest we will need an additional 20,000 tower climbers alone for installation of this wireless infrastructure.

In addition, after installation, every one of these small cells will have to be monitored and maintained, which will require a substantial increase in the telecommunications workforce.

This amendment will help identify ways in which we can expand the number of workers enrolled in 5G training programs and identify ways to grow the telecommunications workforce well into the future.

This amendment received unanimous support by the Commerce Committee earlier this year, and I would encourage my colleagues here to do the same.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Blackburn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty) would have voted ``nay.''

Madam President, the Biden border crisis continues unabated. Far from being the seasonal surge the President claimed months ago, the numbers at the border keep growing.

Last month, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered more than 188,000 individuals attempting to cross our southern border. That is not only the highest number seen so far this year; that is the highest monthly number in 21 years--21 years.

In all, Customs and Border Protection has had more than 1.1 million encounters along our southern border so far in fiscal year 2021, and we still have 3 months to go. In fiscal year 2019, by

comparison, the year before COVID, total--total--encounters for the entire fiscal year were under 980,000 individuals.

We have a border crisis--a crisis that President Biden seems unable or unwilling to address.

And as massive as those numbers I have mentioned are, they don't take into account those individuals who are sneaking across the border without being apprehended. Some of them are, no doubt, individuals who are looking for a better life. Others are almost undoubtedly criminals, engaged in the kind of illicit activities that we have to combat along our southern border--human trafficking, drug smuggling, and others.

In June, Customs and Border Protection seized more than 1,000 pounds of fentanyl along our southern border, an incredibly dangerous drug that some have pushed to classify as a weapon of mass destruction. That is more fentanyl than was seized in that area in the previous three Junes combined.

What has the Biden administration been doing to deal with the crisis along our border? Well, not much.

There has been no move to reinstate the national emergency designation for our southern border that President Biden canceled after he took office. There is no meaningful plan for stopping the flood of illegal immigration and enhancing security along our southern border. There is no move to reinstate funding for the congressionally mandated border wall that President Biden canceled.

In fact, the President is apparently contemplating ending title 42, which has allowed the government to immediately remove apprehended individuals in order to help manage the COVID crisis.

That is right. At the same time the CDC is expanding its masking guidance for Americans, the administration is contemplating ending a measure to help stop COVID-infected individuals from entering the United States.

And I haven't even mentioned the fact that apparently the administration has released tens of thousands of individuals into the United States without court dates, many of whom have failed to show up at Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices as directed.

The border situation is out of control, and President Biden bears a big part of the blame.

Immigration has helped build this country, and I strongly support making sure that the United States continues to offer a chance for individuals the world over to achieve their dream of a better life. I also support temporary worker programs, like the H-2B visa program, that allow individuals from other countries to come here for a limited time period to work and for the economic opportunity and then return to their home countries.

I also support a solution that would allow Dreamers to stay in the United States if--if--such a solution is developed in the context of immigration reform and enhanced border security.

But we cannot have endless floods of illegal immigration. No country can. It is a humanitarian nightmare and a serious security risk.

Immigration has to have limits, and, most of all, it has to be legal. We need to protect and encourage legal immigration, while cracking down on illegal immigration.

Unfortunately, Democrats are going in the opposite direction. The word is that Democrats would like to include amnesty in the budget- busting, tax-and-spending spree that they are pushing to vote on later this year.

That is right. With a serious humanitarian and security crisis along our southern border, Democrats want to include amnesty in their spending plan.

Now, I can only imagine that this will encourage thousands more to make the dangerous trek to and across our southern border, not to mention how such a policy would undermine respect for the rule of law.

I wish I could say that I see some light at the end of the tunnel when it comes to the border, but if the Biden administration continues along its current path, I fully expect this security and humanitarian crisis to continue.

I can only hope that President Biden will recognize the problems his policies, or lack thereof, are causing, before too many more individuals suffer the consequences.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. President, not content with their $1.9 trillion so- called COVID relief bill--paid for entirely with money borrowed from younger generations of Americans and our children and grandchildren-- Democrats are readying another partisan spending spree.

Democrats are preparing to consider a $3.5 trillion tax-and-spending package, this one at least partially paid for by massive tax hikes--tax hikes on small businesses, tax hikes on large businesses, tax hikes on investment, tax hikes on well-off Americans, and tax hikes on the middle class. That is right, tax hikes on the middle class.

Now, President Biden is fond of repeating that he won't raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000 a year, but the new death tax he is proposing will definitely hit some middle-class Americans. Let's talk about that new tax.

President Biden and congressional Democrats are proposing to eliminate a part of the Tax Code known as ``step-up in basis'' or referred to often as ``stepped-up basis.'' Under our current Tax Code, when you inherit something from an estate, whether that is stocks or a house, the value of that item is stepped up from its original value to its current market value when you receive it. This prevents you from having to pay capital gains taxes on the amount that your parents' house increased in value when it was owned by your parents.

Let's say you inherit a house that your parents bought for $100,000, but it is now worth $500,000. Under current law, when you inherit that house, you are not liable for taxes on the increase in value from the time your parents bought it. The house is transferred to you at its current market value of $500,000. So if you sell the house right when you inherit it, you will receive the full value of the house instead of having to pay taxes on the amount that the house increased in value while your parents owned it. If you sell that house 2 years later for $650,000, you are only required to pay taxes on the $150,000 in value it gained while it was in your possession.

Under the Democrats' proposal, however, capital gains taxes would automatically be triggered upon death if the increase in value of an individual's estate has exceeded a certain amount. So, if your parents' house or the family farm or other assets have increased in value more than Democrats deem desirable, you would now owe capital gains taxes on the amount of that increase immediately after your parents' death minus the amount Democrats choose to exempt.

There are plenty of middle-class Americans around this country who would be paying this tax. You wouldn't be protected just because you make under $400,000 a year.

Now, the President has tried to get around this by arguing that Democrats would be taxing dead individuals, not living ones. So if your parents die and pass on their estate, the argument suggests the tax that you have to send to the Federal Government isn't a tax on you but on your parents. Well, who does he think he is fooling? Who is going to experience the loss of that money--you or your parents? Who is going to be writing the check to the Federal Government? You will.

Let's imagine that a woman's parents die and leave her their estate, and 2 weeks later, a thief comes in and steals part of that inheritance. Who are people going to think was robbed--the daughter or her deceased parents? I think all of us would recognize that it was the daughter who was robbed. The same thing applies to Democrats' proposed new death tax. It is not dead Americans who would be writing checks to the Federal Government. Sure, the tax is owed by the decedent or transferor, but for all practical purposes, the costs would be borne by their descendants.

The truth is, even if we accept the argument that Democrats' new death tax is a tax on deceased Americans and not their descendants, this tax would still hit some middle-class Americans. After all, it is perfectly possible to work hard your whole life and invest wisely and see your estate appreciate in value by more than $1.25 million--the proposed individual exemption level--over the course of your life without ever exiting the middle class. We are not talking about confining this taxation to individuals with a yearly income of $1.25 million; we are talking about the increase in value on an estate over a person's lifetime. There is no question that this tax would fall on the estates of some thoroughly middle-class Americans.

The problems with this new death tax aren't limited to the fact that it breaks President Biden's pledge not to raise taxes on individuals making under $400,000 a year. There are a lot of additional problems, starting with the administration and compliance costs of this tax.

Congress actually passed a similar proposal in the 1970s but repealed it before it went into effect because it was so complicated and unworkable. That is right. Congress repealed the proposal before it was even implemented because it was clear that collecting this tax was going to be too complicated.

Forty-odd years later, collecting this tax would still be an enormously complicated matter. It would put incredible new recordkeeping requirements on a lot of American families, and it would strain the capabilities of the IRS, although those 87,000 new IRS employees President Biden wants to add to the Agency would certainly increase the available manpower to levy new tax hikes.

Plus, I can only imagine the litigation that would arise over the valuation of assets. What happens if the IRS disagrees with the estimate of the value of your family farm or business? Do you have to take the IRS to court? Will the IRS take you to court?

In addition, there is a very real danger that Americans would be paying taxes on nonexistent gains, in part due to inflation and the natural expansion of the economy. Recent economic reports are raising concerns that, with the administration's robust new entitlement spending, Americans could be shouldering the burdens of significant inflation now and long into the future. But Democrats' new death tax would not account for inflation on an asset, like a family-owned farm or business, which means Americans could be paying a lot of money in taxes on nonexistent gains.

Finally, I want to talk about the threat this tax poses to family farms and businesses.

Now, Democrats claim that they will defer this tax for family farms and businesses as long as a member of the family inherits and then runs the farm or business, but it is completely unclear what this will look like in practice. Will ``family members'' refer only to sons and daughters? What if a stepson wants to take over the farm, or a niece? Will the inheritors still be subject to the tax then, which could result in their having to sell that farm the niece wants to run? What happens if two or more of the children want to run the farm? There are a lot of unanswered questions.

Of course, it is important to remember that Democrats will only be deferring the tax. So if the time ever comes when the family wants to sell the farm--maybe it is getting hard to run and a neighboring family is willing to buy it--the family would have to pay those taxes that were deferred when their mom or dad died. If that family farm has been handed down through a few generations already, it is completely possible that paying those taxes would consume a big part of that legacy.

There is a reason 13 House Democrats sent a letter to House Democratic leaders expressing their concern about the proposed step-up in basis repeal. It is because this tax would pose a real threat to the continued existence of family farms and businesses. It is the same reason that those in agriculture and small business communities oppose this new death tax.

I was proud to lead all 50 Senate Republicans in a letter last week, urging President Biden to drop this misguided proposal, and I will continue to do everything I can to protect family farms and businesses from this new tax.

There should be a limit on how many times the Federal Government can tax you. Americans' bank accounts should not be regarded as a bottomless barrel of money to pay for Democrats' preferred government programs, because that is exactly what is happening here. Democrats want to massively and permanently expand government, and they are looking to Americans and American businesses to pay for their social experiments. They apparently haven't spent much time considering how our economy or American families would suffer as a result of their tax- and-spending spree.

Middle-class Americans should not have to see their inheritances shrink to pay for Democrats' spending, and family farms and businesses that already face challenges from our current death tax should not have to be worrying that a new death tax will spell the end of their hard- earned legacies.

I hope the Democrats will think twice before moving forward with this new tax increase on Americans.

I yield the floor.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).