Floor Statements

Madam President, I find it so interesting that my friend and colleague across the aisle is trying to deflect questions and concerns that we have by insinuations and some pretty disgusting slander, and I am sorry that we have listened to that here on the floor of this Chamber.

Yes, indeed, I am coming to the floor today to oppose discharging Vanita Gupta from this floor to be confirmed as the Associate Attorney General. And, yes, I have concerns. I have had questions in committee.

I will tell you I didn't expect to find a lot in common with her because I have had a difficult time finding a lot in common with some of the nominees that President Biden has sent over to us at Judiciary Committee. But as a member of that committee, it is my responsibility to approach each nomination with an open mind. Some I have decided were worthy of an ``aye'' vote. There are others, like Ms. Gupta, that I feel are not worthy of a confirmation vote.

Over the course of the review of information--and to my friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 11,000 pages of documents--you can send in a million pages of documents, but if you are not answering the question, if you are trying to circumvent the question or nuance it or dance around it, it still doesn't answer the question. So the volume doesn't really matter.

What matters is someone who steps up and says: Here is my answer-- clear, concise. That is what you want, and that is what the American people expect.

I arrived at the opinion that, no, I didn't think she was fit to take that No. 3 position, not because I disagreed politically but because the answers that she gave on some specific issues--police funding, drug legalization, qualified immunity--were so inconsistent with what she had previously said or what she had previously written that no one can say with any degree of certainty what she will do with the newfound power if we decided to give that to her. No one knows what she would do.

Due to the time constraints we have on the floor today, I want to go back to the 2012 article and use that as one example. There has been quite a bit said about that. Now, she was in the position of the ACLU's deputy legal director. She wrote an op-ed arguing--and I quote, and we have just heard a good bit about this--``States should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs, particularly marijuana, and for small amounts of other drugs.'' That is a quote.

Speaking as a Senator representing the interests of a State struggling to emerge from the opioid epidemic, this statement to me is a disqualifier. It is as simple as that.

Senator Cornyn added to that conversation with other specific items that have transpired in her past. In her hearing, which took place in March, Ms. Gupta almost got away with disavowing that op-ed. But when we pressed her on it, what did she have to say? That her position had evolved.

It seems there is an issue with some of these nominees that are coming before us. They are going through these just in time, road to Damascus, evolution processes. All of a sudden, they are evolving to a position of something that they think the committee wants to hear, that they think will help them skirt through, that they think will help them get confirmed so that they can hold the power.

Ms. Gupta has also evolved on criminal justice reform, on the fundamentals for that. And as we have discussed on this floor today, the fact checkers have had a pretty good time with that. Back in March, the Washington Post took her to task--Senator Cornyn talked about this--her evolving position, her shifting views on defunding the police, decriminalization of drugs. This is the Washington Post. This is the Washington Post that gave her the unusual upside-down Pinocchio because she was flip-flopping and evolving at such a rapid rate, they couldn't keep up with it.

Madam President, everyone has the right and the opportunity to change their mind. Absolutely, people have the right to change their mind, but trying to follow the many changes of her mind on the issue of drug crimes, on decriminalization, on defunding police--these are important issues to our communities. These are not a game. These are very important issues to the safety and security of our communities.

The number of inconsistencies in her testimony more than test the boundaries of understanding. Is she still evolving? Is she going to flip-flop, as the Washington Post says, back to her previous opinions of 2012? Is she going to flip-flop again? Would we see that in the next 11,000 pages of documents that were submitted that she has decided to change her mind one more time? From what standard is she going to work at the Department of Justice?

Each of these are concerns. Each of these are reasons that my hope is that this Chamber will refuse to discharge Vanita Gupta for a confirmation vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it has been just over 2 months since we transferred majority rule to President Biden and the Democrats, and they have made it very clear that not even their most radical policy proposals are up for debate. They just want to push things through. In fact, based on what we have seen, I am willing to go on the record as saying that they see any possibility of defeat as an impermissible challenge to their hold on power, and they have got quite a long enemies' list.

You will recall that, back in 2016, after Donald Trump won the election, liberal activists blamed the electoral college for their many campaign failures.

In 2020, even as the count came down in their favor, the attacks continued. Faced with the possibility of constitutionalist, conservative judicial nominees, the Supreme Court also became a source of righteous panic. In the wake of the 2020 election, activists were quick to demand that their new majority break the structure of the Court and transform it into a rubberstamp for radical policies that don't stand a chance of surviving this Chamber under regular order.

Just this year, when faced with a much slimmer majority than, I am sure, they expected, many of my Democratic colleagues reversed their positions on the filibuster. Suddenly, the procedural backstop so many of them had once vowed to protect--this was an important check against the tyranny of the majority--was, all of a sudden, nothing more than a racist relic of Jim Crow America. So we are left to assume, I suppose, that tyranny started to look pretty good in the face of such a slim majority.

Yet the filibuster isn't the only Senate institution that came under fire. Debate over a Federal minimum wage increase grew so unhinged that many Democrats suggested firing the Parliamentarian and replacing her with someone who was willing to deploy his or her own rubberstamp. Just this week, news broke that Senate Democrats are now toying with the idea of firing the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. For what? For the unpardonable sin of doing his job.

If you don't like the score, fire the scorekeeper. If you don't like the standard, wipe it off the books. If you don't like the institution, just burn it to the ground.

It is a familiar curriculum now reflected in the Democrats' latest effort to demolish and rebuild the country in their own radical image. They call it the For the People Act, but the basic premise of S. 1 is that, in order to secure our elections, we have no choice

but to take electoral power away from the people and put it in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats. It is a top-down approach that, if implemented, would centralize control over elections in direct contravention to the Constitution, destroy barriers to voter fraud, and enable radical activists to harass and intimidate their political opponents. It is the sort of power grab you would expect a cartoon villain to conduct, but here we are, debating this in the U.S. Senate.

When you dive into the specifics, it really gets worse. Here are some things that it would do.

The bill would, indeed, ban voter ID requirements and force States to allow ballot harvesting schemes.

The Federal Election Commission, which for the moment is a balanced, bipartisan Agency, would morph into a partisan, prosecutorial body, ready to be weaponized against the political minority.

Instead of living or dying by the support of loyal donors, under this new scheme, political campaigns would receive public money payouts, which they could then use to promote whatever message they pleased no matter how objectionable it might be to the taxpayers, who would be funding those campaigns.

Speaking of those donors, if you have ever wondered who was behind a particular campaign, this bill has you covered. It includes new restrictions on political speech in the form of a donor disclosure mandate. Say goodbye to anonymous political activity in the tradition of the Federalist Papers and the civil rights movement. This is cancel culture on steroids, and if the Democrats have their way, this is what is coming to a precinct near you.

Of course, the centralization of power on this scale will require a laundry list of regulations, and on that front, S. 1 does not disappoint. The requirements shoveled onto local and State officials are so burdensome and impractical that I refuse to believe anyone involved in the drafting has ever staffed a polling place. Certainly, they have never served as volunteers on a county election commission. That is something I had the honor of doing a couple of decades ago.

If they get their way, the same automatic registration procedures that failed voters in California and in Illinois are coming to a county elections office in your neighborhood.

Felons will regain their right to vote in Federal elections, but no one seems willing to explain how they expect State officials to prevent them from voting in down-ballot races.

Elections officials will have the pleasure of purchasing new paper- backed voting machines just as soon as those machines come into existence. That is right. This bill mandates the use of technology that hasn't hit the marketplace.

Speaking of theoretical technology, for some reason, the drafters of this bill also thought it would be a good idea to force States to invent new technology to support automated voter registration by phone.

Elections are not easy events to stand up. County officials and volunteers work year-round to ensure that polling places are staffed and safe, that machines are functional, and that volunteers are well trained to recognize illegal electioneering and fraud. Over the years, State and local authorities have found their own solutions to these challenges. When those solutions fail, we have the ability to implement Federal backstops against voter suppression and election mishandling.

Everyone has his own role to play. These roles are outlined in the Constitution for a reason--because the Founders knew that any detached Federal bureaucracy would lack the competence to solve the unique logistical challenges my Democratic colleagues are trying to use as proof that Congress must step in to burn down yet another institution of our democracy. That is the constitutional imperative of the States to set the time, place, and manner of elections.

If we continue to go down this road, this partisan fever dream will become codified chaos that will trickle all the way down to the precinct level and irreparably erode confidence in the electoral process.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, we have just listened to Senator Portman, and you are hearing others of us on the Republican side of the aisle talk about the elevated levels of spending and how our Democratic colleagues have seemed to lose touch with the American people. This is something that appears to have happened at lightning speed.

It really began on the very first day of the Biden administration. It started with the stroke of a pen and a stream of Executive orders. On Day 1, President Biden made a decision that he would weaken our border, and with that stroke of a pen, he destroyed hundreds--hundreds, thousands--of good-paying union jobs right in the middle of a pandemic, and that was by eliminating the Keystone Pipeline. With every decision, he has made it abundantly clear that he came back to Washington not to serve this country but to advance an agenda pushed by the most radical leftwing of the Democratic Party.

That being said, the White House has a problem because the American people have figured out what they are up to, and as I have been home for the past couple of weeks, I have talked to Tennesseeans from every political division. They are Democrats, Republicans, Independents; they are unaffiliated; and they are concerned citizens. It bothers them, what they are seeing from this White House. How could they not have, after seeing Senate Democrats spend $1.9 trillion on coronavirus relief that spent just 9 percent of that pricetag on testing and healthcare jobs? If that didn't do it, President Biden surely ticked them off when he nominated a Health and Human Services Secretary with no healthcare experience--zero--and a Homeland Security Secretary who believes that we should have unsecured borders. You cannot make this up. People are astounded with this.

So when people back home in Tennessee saw President Biden's latest proposal for a $2 trillion so-called infrastructure bill, they weren't particularly shocked to see that very little of this legislation has to do with infrastructure.

Just 3 months into the new administration and already they know that

this is just another vehicle for the left's wish list.

The most frustrating thing about it is that Tennesseans have repeatedly told me that a smart, targeted plan to fund infrastructure improvements would make a tremendous difference in local communities and in our State. They support that type of investment. They want to see that. Roads, bridges, waterways, highways, broadband, airports, they are for that. What they don't support is an administration that repeatedly promises one thing and then chooses to do the opposite.

Just like last month's over-the-top spending bill, this month's multitrillion-dollar boondoggle isn't just a waste of taxpayer dollars; it is a missed opportunity to rebuild parts of our economy that were struggling to keep up before the pandemic hit.

Here is a number for your talking points: Less than 6 percent. And what is less than 6 percent? That is the amount, that is the percentage of this $2 trillion bill that actually goes to infrastructure projects--less than 6 percent.

Tennesseans are asking me: How could this possibly happen? We have been talking about having an infrastructure bill now for about 3 years, and you bring a bill forward--the Democratic leadership does--and less than 6 percent goes to infrastructure.

Now, this sounds like a familiar tactic: Redefine your standards, put less than 10 percent of your funding toward your stated purpose, then throw the rest into yet another handout for projects that would not stand a chance. They wouldn't have a snowball's chance of receiving public support on their own, much less 60 votes here in this Chamber.

President Biden's American jobs plan ignores rural Tennesseans who have to navigate flood plains to get to work or to get to school. It bypasses crumbling bridges they can't avoid, but it sure does pay a lot of attention to Green New Deal policies that were nonstarters even before Speaker Pelosi lost ground in the House.

Climate change studies and union payouts take precedent over roads, bridges, ports, airports, and waterways. In fact, this absurd scheme spends more taxpayer money on electric cars than on all of those things combined. Yes, you heard me correctly. This so-called infrastructure bill spends more money, more of your hard-earned tax dollars, on electric cars than on all of the roads, bridges, highways, ports, airports, and waterways. That is correct.

Another day, another power grab made worse by job-destroying, corporate tax increases that will put American companies at a global disadvantage. It is no wonder Democrats have been working overtime to stretch the definition of ``infrastructure'' past the point of reason.

These days, entire White House press briefings rely on the idea that the definition of ``infrastructure'' will continue to evolve--as they say, it is going to evolve--to make it include whatever the Democrats decide that it should include. It is a time-honored liberal trick that has run its course.

They can tweet that lie every day for the next 4 years if they choose, but here in the real world, we are dealing with an economy still in recovery, major industries in crisis, and millions of families who are working terribly hard and long hours to just make ends meet.

What we are seeing here isn't just a disconnect. This is an administration attempting to impose their socialist vision on a country that cannot sustain the cost.

To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I want to be clear. That vision of America that you have invented to fulfill this purpose does not exist. It is time to come up for air and talk a little reality.

I know it is a popular thing here in Washington to claim that elections have consequences, but on your first day back in power, the Democratic Party got together and marched right across the line that separates consequences from punishment. Punishment, that is what they are all about.

I would also encourage my Democratic colleagues to remember that when they do this, when they put together these trillion-dollar handouts for radical special interests, political pain for their opponents isn't the only result. They are punishing their neighbors, their friends, communities that are in their States. They are making life harder, much more difficult, for local businesses and small business manufacturers, and they are exposing our weaknesses to our adversaries.

I will tell you, if President Biden and the majority leader shove yet another blank check through this Chamber, they are going to find out in a hurry, I really do believe, how little the American people have to give for their leftist agenda.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, last month alone, more than 100,000 migrants crossed our southern border. Our ports of entry are overrun; holding facilities are packed; and, yes, our Border Patrol agents are absolutely exhausted. They are exhausted. This isn't just a logistical challenge; it is a tragedy made worse by the Biden administration's disastrous open borders policies.

The crisis is escalating, especially for the tens of thousands of children who have arrived in this country very much alone. Unaccompanied minors accounted for nearly 10 percent of all migrants who crossed our border last month. That is roughly 10,000 children a month walking into chaos.

Anyone paying a bit of attention knows what is going on here. Customs and Border Protection has been sounding the alarm on the connection between children and human trafficking for years. The coyotes, the cartels, and the gangs use children as drug mules. They use them as sex slaves. If you don't believe me, ask anyone with the CBP why they administer pregnancy tests to little girls as young as 13 as soon as they arrive at the border.

This is a heartbreaking situation. These children are living in hell, and it is getting worse. False claims of family ties have fueled a rise in fraudulent asylum claims and in human trafficking. Adult migrants are making arrangements with cartels and smugglers to borrow children. They claim kinship and use that relationship to bolster a fraudulent asylum claim. And what do they do when they have gotten what they want? They send the child back across the border to start the entire nightmarish process with another stranger. That is correct. This is called child recycling, but I think ``recycling'' is an odd choice of words to describe one human being treating another human being like a piece of garbage. Again, this is heartbreaking.

If you want to get an idea of how big a problem we have, consider that the Department of Homeland Security says that, over the past decade, they have seen a 1,675-percent increase in asylum cases.

In 2019, Immigration and Customs Enforcement implemented a pilot DNA testing program to try to stop this rampant exploitation. They found that 20 percent of all kinship claims they were able to screen were lies--20 percent.

This is a humanitarian crisis, an environmental crisis, and a health and safety crisis. The Biden administration has lost control of this situation, but there are things we can do right now to protect these children and put the smugglers in check.

This week, I introduced the End Child Trafficking Now Act, which would require our border agents to administer DNA tests to adult migrants claiming kinship with a minor without migrants' having the legal documentation to prove it.

If the adult refuses, they will be immediately deported. Furthermore, the bill mandates a 10-year penalty for all alien adults who lie about their relationship with a minor.

The test is simple. It takes about 90 minutes. Ninety minutes could mean the difference between that child finding safety in the United States and that child being dragged back to a cartel.

We are on pace to see 17,000 more unaccompanied minors arrive this month. ICE proved this testing strategy can help protect them. There is no valid, fact-based reason not to do it.

Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 903 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I think my colleague understands that this bill would apply to individuals, to adults who cannot show kinship and do not have legal documentation.

We know that human trafficking, sex trafficking, and child trafficking have become a major industry. We know that child recycling is a practice that is used by the cartels. We know that they are using this to move adults into the country; thereby, this is something that would put the cartels in check and show that we are not going to stand for them recycling children, claiming kinship to children who are not theirs, and trying to move drug smugglers and cartel members into this country.

Madam President, it appears that President Biden arrived at the White House prepared and willing to grant himself and his administration a mandate that American voters didn't agree to give him.

His party lost ground in the House, split the Senate, and maintained their trailing minority of governorships, but they seem to ignore that. In his first 50 days, he signed 34 Executive orders--more than anyone in history. He dismantled existing immigration controls, threatened protections for small businesses against the radical climate agenda, and destroyed thousands of jobs and the potential for greater energy security promised by the Keystone XL Pipeline project.

Meanwhile, my Democratic colleagues got busy laying the groundwork to transform not only the Senate into a majoritarian institution but also to radically transform the country. They used budget reconciliation to ram through a $1.9 trillion bailout bill without a single Republican vote--the largest spending bill in our Nation's history--and now they are reversing their own positions on the filibuster to avoid debate on radical immigration reform, the Equality Act, and an already infamous bill that would federalize elections. They just don't want to talk about these things--just do it.

The more people learn about what the Biden White House is up to the more questions they have for those of us who represent them.

Some of my Democratic friends in Tennessee say to me: I may have voted for Joe Biden, but I did not vote for this.

They do not want to radically change the country. They do not want to be tied to legislation that has a nice-sounding name but that does the exact opposite of what the Biden administration would have you believe that it would accomplish.

They have noticed that the President's Cabinet picks have come to their confirmation hearings ready and willing to move the goalposts away from the Constitution and the rule of law in order to accommodate their radical agenda.

Last week, this body voted to discharge from committee Xavier Becerra's nomination to the Health and Human Services Secretary position. I voted no, and I will vote no on his confirmation as well, not only because he is unqualified and has no experience in healthcare--Middle Tennessee has more than 100,000 individuals who are employed in the healthcare industry, and all, all are more qualified in healthcare than Xavier Becerra--and not only because his radical views shock just about everyone who speaks to me about him. Oh, yes, it was a topic of conversation at church on Sunday but also because, time and again, he has abused his power and weaponized the full force of the government against people whose deeply held, personal, political, and religious views don't align with his own: submit, conform, or else.

It is in the nature of our job as legislators to recognize that, yes, elections do have consequences and that, yes, the President has a right to assemble his own Cabinet, but we cannot be expected to green-light a nominee who has so little patience for diversity--diversity of thought, diversity of opinions--that his first and only instinct is to destroy the diversity: Barrel in. Burn it to the ground. Build it back in their own image. That is not what the American people want President Biden and his administration to do, but that is what they are getting with this nominee.

I strongly oppose Xavier Becerra's nomination, as I have from the start, and I would urge my colleagues to consider what you will be approving if you vote in favor of this confirmation: radically anti- life, radically anti-religion, radically anti-border security, radically anti-free speech, radically unqualified to lead.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Lujan, Carper, and myself be allowed to complete our remarks before the rollcall vote.

Thank you, Madam President.

The southern border. The situation at our southern border has devolved into chaos. That is what I am hearing from some of my former House colleagues who have been on that border today.

According to them, we are once again facing a crisis. Thirteen days ago, Customs and Border Protection announced that they were deploying more agents to help manage the spike and apprehensions of adults and unaccompanied alien children.

Then, last Monday, news broke that Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had sent an email to DHS staff begging for volunteers to go to the border and help with logistics and humanitarian aid.

It is obvious they need help on the border. In January alone, the Customs and Border Patrol detained nearly 78,000 people--more than double the number of apprehensions in January of 2020.

In February, that number jumped to more than 100,000 arrests and detentions. CBP took more than 9,000 unaccompanied minors into custody that month, prompting the administration to open two overflow detention centers to house them.

Listen to these numbers: 100,000 arrests and detentions in February; 9,000 unaccompanied minors being taken into custody that month--having to open 2 overflow detention centers.

New data released last Wednesday shows that our agents are now detaining more than 4,000 people along the border every single day-- 4,000 every day.

Our facilities and resources are exhausted, and so are the agents responsible for controlling this out-of-control situation.

It did not have to be this way. Secretary Mayorkas has accused the Trump administration of ``dismantling our Nation's immigration system.'' That is his quote. But if he wants to know who is really responsible, he should look to the current White House.

I have stated time and again how disastrous President Biden's policy of governing by Executive fiat has been. Thirty-four Executive orders in his first 50 days--34.

Also, he has suspended construction of the border wall, jeopardizing our national security. He has embraced DACA. He halted most deportations. He cut domestic immigration arrests by 60 percent and dismantled the migrant protection protocols.

This administration threw our existing immigration law out the window and let the world know that when it comes to illegal entry, not only will we look the other way, this administration is encouraging them to come. Even their Cabinet nominees are playing by these new rules of encouraging individuals to break our laws, to come to the country illegally. They are encouraging this.

Last week, this Chamber voted to discharge Xavier Becerra's nomination from committee. I voted no. He is one of the most flagrant offenders out there when it comes to sending these signals. He has openly admitted he would like to decriminalize illegal entry and offer Medicaid to anyone who manages to get across the border.

They have made a lot of promises that they know they are not going to be able to live up to, and now they are trying to walk it all back, walk back the hope that sparked in thousands of people because they have heard that the border was going to be open. They are even wearing the T-shirts with the slogan, ``Biden, let us in.''

They are going to have to walk back the mess that is there on the border, and I am fearful and concerned that their walk-backs are not going to work because from what we are hearing about the border, they have lost control of that border.

I look forward to traveling to the border for a briefing on the situation. This administration does not want their critics to see what is happening down there. There are days you would think they have got a news blackout going at the border.

This isn't just a problem in Texas or California or Arizona or New Mexico. Every town is a border town and every State is a border State because of the drugs, the human trafficking, sex trafficking, and gangs that are streaming across our border.

You know, it means that no matter how hard you try, you can't hide the tragedy that inevitably unfolds when your immigration policy is to have zero immigration policy at all, just open the border and let them come.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have to tell you, you can always tell how controversial a nominee is by how fast his supporters work to finish the confirmation process, and last night, at 6:12, we found out that the Democrats tried to pull a fast one on Xavier Becerra's nomination. They were trying to fast-track this, and I was able to object to that hotline request, but the fact that they tried it shows that they are worried about this nominee, and they should be. After two unimpressive hearings and seeing the split vote on the Finance Committee, I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come to realize that his lack of experience in the healthcare sector is one of those big things.

You know, we have over 400 healthcare companies in Tennessee and tens of thousands of employees in that sector. They all--each and every one of them--have more healthcare experience than the Biden administration's nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services.

His greatest hits from his job keep coming back to haunt him, and as much as his allies here in the Senate try to spin his record, they just can't seem to convince people that he is fit to lead. I was curious how wide the divide is between Tennesseeans and the Becerra nomination, so I asked my staff to look through our mailbag and see what people were calling and writing about.

This nomination was in the top five issues of concern. People in Tennessee are not happy. As I mentioned, healthcare, our religious organizations--what they are seeing is somebody who has crossed the line too many times. They do not see him as fit to lead.

His lack of experience in the healthcare industry explains why so many people would oppose him. He thinks it would be a good idea to take private health insurance away from 160 million Americans and throw them into a disastrous single-payer system. If that is what you want, then he would be a great Secretary of HHS for you.

If he has his way, he will use his new position to further undermine our immigration laws. He has admitted--his own admission--that given the chance, he would decriminalize illegal entry and extend Medicaid benefits to anyone who manages to make it across the border. It is like winning the lottery. If you get across that border, we are going to give you healthcare benefits, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

We cannot afford to keep confirming nominees who have zero respect for the rule of law--zero--and even less respect for the value of human life. Throughout his career, Mr. Becerra has made his appallingly radical positions on abortion very well known. He is proud to support abortion up until the moment of birth. He even opposed the 2003 partial-birth abortion ban. He defended a truly evil California law that forced pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortion services offered by State-run clinics.

Recently, a physician friend of mine made a comment about Mr. Becerra's nomination that has really stuck with me. She said:

I'm horrified--

Bear in mind, this is a physician.

I'm horrified by his position on abortion because he would

abort a baby that I would resuscitate. He would abort a baby

that a family is willing to adopt.

Now, think about that. This is a guy, in his congressional career and in his job as the attorney general for California, he is a radical on abortion--a radical. You have physicians who stand there to resuscitate these babies that have difficulty during birth. He would allow those babies to be aborted when a physician would choose life, would choose to help that baby live.

According to Mr. Becerra, religious exemptions should be a thing of the past. He relentlessly harassed religious employers like Hobby Lobby and nonprofit organizations like the Little Sisters of the Poor as part of his crusade to uphold ObamaCare's contraception mandate. I think it is clear why the Finance Committee split their vote on this nomination. It has nothing to do with politics.

Xavier Becerra's obsession with dismantling American society and rebuilding it in his own image can't be boiled down to a simple policy position. Instead, it signals his desire to force Americans to live their lives according to his twisted world view.

He may have the approval of leftists, but the American people and thousands of Tennesseans have already written him off as radically unqualified, and, frankly, so have I.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this motion to discharge and opposing the nomination. He is radically anti-life, anti-religion, anti-border security, anti-free speech. He is unqualified to lead.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, this past Saturday, Senate Democrats signed off on the largest and most partisan transfer of wealth in the history of the U.S. Congress.

In the weeks leading up to that vote, they insisted that their $1.9 trillion giveaway would bring the relief the American people were seeking. They quoted suspect polling and anecdotes to support their ridiculous claims that the bill was bipartisan, even though they never even tried to secure bipartisan support. In fact, I would argue that Democrats threw away the idea of bipartisanship the moment they chose to use the reconciliation process to force their hand. After almost 30 hours of debate, they did just that on a party-line vote. Then the cracks in their claims of bipartisanship and necessity began to show.

Almost immediately after the final vote, the majority leader called it--and I am quoting--``one of the most progressive pieces of legislation--if not the most progressive--in decades.'' But we all know that his definition of ``progressive'' isn't compatible with the kind of targeted relief everyone here would probably agree that this country needs, had my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not seen an opportunity to fulfill the radical campaign promises that had put them into power. They chose--they chose--that power over dealing with the needs that people have.

They did what they set out to do. A fraction of the American Rescue Plan's $2 trillion pricetag would go toward that--and I am quoting again--``big, bold, urgent'' relief that Democrats spent all weekend long bragging about. I am sure you heard them as you turned on the TV. Here is the truth: Only 9 percent--9 percent--will go toward vaccines, testing, healthcare jobs; 9 percent of a nearly $2 trillion bill goes for COVID relief.

But if we want to talk about big, bold spending plans, let's talk about all those special earmarks and sweetheart deals that Democrats used to take advantage of the situation and seize even more power-- again, after the power, using people as pawns to get their liberal wish list, get the money in the pipeline. Of course, you can forget that we had $1 trillion already in the pipeline that had not been spent, also putting their desired power ahead of our children and grandchildren who are going to have to pay that debt. Immoral.

In my office, we call this bill the blue State bailout. We do it for a reason. You can look at this chart. Along with that laughable 9 percent of actual COVID relief, the American people took on $350 billion in debt to cover a bailout for some of the highest spending and most poorly managed State and local governments in the country. The number is astronomically higher than even the most extreme estimates of need conjured up by leftwing think tanks. It is more than the $31 billion loss in expected tax revenue that experts forecasted. And it doesn't even take into consideration that many States don't need a bailout. Many States had success putting those five previous bipartisan COVID relief packages to work. They caught up on their tax revenue with time to spare.

But, still, that $350 billion, it served a purpose. You can see it right here. The blue States, they are getting more money. The red States, they are losing money. It created yet another expectation of dependency that mismanaged States and local governments can lean on when their out-of-control spending policies come back to bite them.

And we have learned today that the majority leader had a staff member who tweeted out that the money from this bill, it would tend to New York State's deficit--pretty much the same thing we are hearing from California and from some of the big blue cities. If you can't control your spending habits, crank up the printing presses.

The payday continued with an $85 billion no-strings-attached pension bailout that everyone from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget to the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, to the editorial board of the Washington Post agree had nothing to do with COVID relief--nothing. It was a gift to an embattled constituency and another pernicious assertion that when the going gets tough and the money in those mismanaged funds evaporates, just call on the Federal Government and crank up the printing presses one more time. Why? Oh, we need the money. We cannot manage our budgets. We are running low on fulfilling our obligation to the pension fund. Oh, my goodness, we have so many needs.

Everybody has needs. Our children and our grandchildren have needs. They need freedom. They need Members of the Senate, Members of the House to act like adults and address the problems that are right in front of us.

When President Biden asked, back in February, what would they have me cut from this spending bill, I would have told him, let's start with this money. Let's start with the money that is going to the States to bail them out because yes, indeed, this is now the Biden blue State bailout.

Democrats' desire for a lawless and open border shone through in their unanimous refusal to accept an amendment that would have kept billions of dollars in direct payments out of the hands of illegal immigrants. This was more than just a handout; it was a signal to every person who is trying to jump the line and break the rules that we will not only tolerate it, but now we are encouraging it. Think about that. Think about that.

The rule of law is out the window. We are willing to chip away at our own security--the Democrats are--and ignore the growing crisis at our southern border--the Democrats are. And if it means we can slap a bandaid on what has become a gaping wound and call it a win in the war against poverty, the Democrats are OK with doing that. It is called spin. But it does not address the underlying issues. It doesn't address the fact that they are doing this at the expense of schools, small businesses, and families.

Democrats certainly followed through on their campaign promise to empower teachers unions. In fact, they went so far as to approve a provision that would pay schools to stay closed. All 50 Democrats voted against an amendment that would have sent new funding only to schools that have followed the science and have reopened safely.

You know, you would have thought that the Democrats would have at least done that for the children. But, no. In addition to saddling them with debt--another $2 trillion worth of debt--they encouraged the teachers unions to not go back to school. That vote put the power right where the Democrats want it--in the hands of the unions. And millions of students and teachers out there will continue to pay the mental and emotional price for this action.

This bill took so much from people who have absolutely nothing to give. Think of all those billions of dollars wasted on unnecessary State bailouts, pension rescues, and union appeasement. We had the opportunity to spend that money on vaccine distribution and

small business relief and a light at the end of the tunnel for rural healthcare systems that are hanging on by a thread.

So why did Democrats throw so much money at their pet projects? Do they really owe that many favors and paybacks? They certainly didn't pour their time and energy into those 600 pages to provide relief but to shamelessly advance their own agenda and throw aside struggling families and workers. Struggling families and workers were simply the price for getting the power that the Democrats wanted.

When I talk to Tennesseans about what happened in this Chamber last week, I tell them: You are right about what you were seeing as you watched the proceedings. You are right. Democrats took advantage of you, of your desperation and your exhaustion. They used slick messaging and wordy phrases to sell a bill of goods that treats every pet project they have and every liberal wish list agenda item as essential.

They like changing the rules. They change the meaning of words like ``essential'' because they knew that if they could make everything that they wanted essential, they could take all the power away from local, responsible governments. They could take it away from school districts and small businesses. And do you know what they are doing with it? They are going to centralize it.

See, here is the thing: You were essential to their greedy power grab. They had to have you.

They had to give their bill a nice-sounding name. They had to say certain things were essential, but you--small businesses, families, people who are playing by the rules, you were not essential to them.

See, that is what ``progressive'' means to Senate Democrats, and if we continue along this road, you are right; it will be an absolute unmitigated disaster for every single person that my colleagues across the aisle have used as leverage against responsible policy that will actually bring us out of this pandemic.

No, it is not about getting out of the pandemic. It is about power, the power that they want.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 996 and ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 4 minutes of debate, equally divided.

Madam President, this amendment strikes an unfair hospital wage index earmark that would benefit just three States: Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Delaware. It would give preferential treatment to them for the consideration of the area wage index.

The benefit comes at the expense of poor Americans that are living in rural areas and make the payout disparities between rural and urban hospitals worse than they already are. If you have rural hospitals in your State and you vote against this amendment, what you are doing is taking money from those hospitals; you are making these disparities worse.

It is a multibillion dollar earmark. Get that, a multibillion dollar earmark. It has nothing to do with COVID relief and does not belong in this bill.

Madam President, to respond to this, I think what you just heard from my colleague from Rhode Island is what happens with too much government interference into healthcare. That is what he is complaining about, as we have been up all night long working on this bill. There is nothing that makes New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Delaware more special than the other States in this country.

If you have rural hospitals, if you have--if you vote no on this amendment, you are making the disparities worse. And I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, to most people back home in Tennessee, ``business as usual'' here in Washington means a combination of partisan bickering and reckless spending, usually after someone up high decides not to let a crisis go to waste. They are used to watching this all play out on TV, then looking at the receipt and seeing a billion dollars' worth of earmarks and pork barrel spending they didn't order.

Right now, Democrats are doing their best to spin the scandal their absurb $1.9 trillion bailout bill has caused as ``business as usual'' but Tennesseans aren't stupid. They know the spin is a lie because over the past year they have seen what ``business as usual'' looks like when it comes to passing COVID relief funding.

Since last March, the Senate has passed five separate relief laws with overwhelming bipartisan support, 96-1, 90-8, 96-0, 100-0, and 92- 6.

But what happened with last month's vote on the budget resolution? Why did it end in a tiebreaker? For the same reason the House passed their version of the bill we are considering today in the dead of night. No amount of good PR could ever make the American people forget that this little exercise the Democrats are leading us through has almost nothing to do with providing emergency COVID relief.

Nine percent. That is how much of this package Democrats want to dedicate to a national vaccination program, expanded testing, and public health jobs. They slapped a ``COVID RELIEF'' label on one of the largest transfers of wealth ever proposed in the history of the U.S. Congress and tried to sneak it through reconciliation before anyone caught on.

This bill is so far over the line that my friends across the aisle have spent the past week fighting over the very provisions House Democrats and the White House used to pitch it. The bill is fatally flawed, right down to the formula it employs to allocate State funding. The previous, bipartisan relief packages used population to determine this. It very straightforward. But this time, Democrats ran the numbers and decided they could benefit by making unemployment rate the deciding factor. And, wouldn't you know it, this new system disproportionately benefits poorly mannaged blue States at the expense of well-managed red ones. New Jersey, New York, and California, whose destructive shutdowns led to high unemployment rates, will walk away with a combined gain of almost $9 billion. Tennessee, on the other hand, is still one of the best fiscally managed States in the country. We will lose $164 million for doing the right thing. Alabama will lose almost $900 million. Both Florida and Georgia will lose over $l.2 billion each.

If this body mandates a transfer of wealth based solely on Democrats' desire to clean up their prepandemic mistakes, we will scare off investment and hamper innovation in every State long after we are able to fully reopen. This isn't a hypothetical--leaders on the State level know what is coming. Last week, 22 Governors, including Tennessee Governor Bill Lee, released a joint statement pointing out the foolish premise driving the new formula. I would like to associate myself with what they said: ``A state's ability to keep businesses open and people employed should not be a penalizing factor when distributing funds.''

If this happens, small towns and mom-and-pop shops will suffer. Those budding tech hubs you hear so much about will suffer. The unemployed people my colleagues on the left are using as leverage against their political rivals will suffer.

So I would ask my colleagues whether fulfilling campaign promises is worth what it will cost the families and small business owners stuck holding the bill. And to the Democratic Senators representing States losing out, I would say that we will be happy

to remind your constituents that you voted to send their tax dollars to New York and California and Illinois and other States that intentionally dragged their economies off a cliff.

Madam President, I know that some of my colleagues have been talking about schools, getting children back to school, getting schools reopened. Indeed, in Tennessee, that is a topic that has received a good bit of conversation. All but two of our school systems have been open and working this entire school year, and those other two systems have recently reopened since the first of the year. Our school superintendents, our directors of school, our parents, our teachers, and the students have all worked together as a team--a solid, cohesive team--to make this happen.

I think there are two main points that we have seen, and as we are holding meetings with our county elected officials and city officials and as they talk about the efforts that they have made in getting children back into the classroom, we hear a lot about one point. That is that our Governor, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee, made it clear that the school districts would be responsible for the ``how'' they were going to open and the ``when'' they would be reopening. I really thank him for listening and recognizing that local officials and individuals in the community really do know what is best for their school districts and their students.

The second point is that these plans didn't just drop out of the sky. As I said, this has been a team effort in our communities, and it has happened because there was this agreement between the administrators and the parents and the teachers that they were going to make decisions that were going to be best for the children. So when you look at Tennessee and how they have approached this--indeed, the schools reopening and how they proceeded--it was done with the children in mind.

Last week, I had the privilege of speaking with school administrators from West Tennessee, who played a part in developing their own reopening plans. I cannot adequately describe to you with the time that we have on the floor today the amount of work and the thoughtfulness that they put into these schedules, from health and safety considerations, to scheduling changes, to the complicated logistics of social distancing and cramped classrooms. They thought it all through by walking through the day and listening to what teachers and parents had to say as to how they would walk through this day.

They took the millions of dollars in CARES Act funding that the area received, and what did they do with that money? They invested in the best possible plan for these kids--no Federal mandate or sweeping litmus test required. They said: We are going to do what is right by these children.

Then, of course, they turned on the TV, and they saw that the Biden administration was busy walking back their own enthusiastic scientific guidance on safely reopening schools--walking it back--and they didn't have to flip too many channels to figure out why. Powerful teachers unions had taken their own stands in refusing to make a plan, in refusing to think things through, and in some cases in refusing to go to work at all--not doing what is best for the children but doing what was going to serve their interests first and, in their opinions, what would best serve their interests. That, I think, they will see were regrettable actions.

Educators in Tennessee were not just confused by what they saw; they were insulted because they knew exactly what was happening. On January 26, CDC officials released a study showing that, if we were careful, safe reopening was indeed possible. Administration officials touted that report as a light at the end of a very long COVID pandemic, but now, just a few weeks later, those same officials are defying their own experts, insisting that safe reopening can only happen if Congress approves additional funding contained in the Democrats' latest, untargeted spending bill.

Students in this country are suffering. They are lonely, they are bored, and many of them are struggling with clinical depression and anxiety. Teen pregnancy, teen alcohol, and suicide rates are rising. Children need to be in in-person school.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has repeatedly stated--bear in mind, this isn't something that I am saying; it isn't something that is partisan; it is the American Academy of Pediatrics--that it is not only feasible but necessary for students to be back in school, back in the classroom, back to seeing their friends, back to participating in extracurricular activities and sports.

I would ask my colleagues across the aisle to keep this in mind when they hear from so-called stakeholders who are willing to hold a child's mental health hostage in exchange for a political win that will serve their power and their purposes and not that of the child's. They might have powerful voices in the cable news circuit, but those sound bites will provide you no cover back home with the teachers and administrators who have rolled up their sleeves, have gotten to work, and have figured out a way to get schools open for the children.

I yield the floor

Mr. President, today, the HELP Committee considered the nomination of Xavier Becerra, our former House colleague, to head the Department of Health and Human Services, and tomorrow the Finance Committee will take their turn at examining his record.

It is hard to think of a nominee more notorious for actively seeking out ways to undermine religious freedom and our religious liberty. His contempt for those whose beliefs differ from his own is well documented, and, in many cases, his positions on those issues are far more radical than those held by the majority in his own party.

He supports abortion up to the moment of birth, and, in 2003, actively opposed the partial-birth abortion ban. He cosponsored legislation that would have forced religious employers to provide insurance that covers the morning-after pill, in spite of their mainstream and sincerely held religious beliefs. Bear in mind I said the legislation would have forced--not an option--forced religious employers to provide insurance that covered the morning-after pill.

In fact, Mr. Becerra has been so antagonistic toward fundamental constitutional principles that you could almost forget he doesn't have the public health experience most Americans would expect the Secretary of Health and Human Services to possess. In fact, he has no meaningful experience in healthcare at all--zero, none, not in public health or large-scale logistical operations or in any other area that might be helpful as we navigate our way out of a global pandemic. That is right. He has no healthcare experience.

This lack of experience, combined with his desire to destroy those who disagree with him, places him among the most unqualified and dangerous nominees ever to come before the Senate for consideration, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing his confirmation.

Mr. President, the first few weeks of the Biden administration produced an absurd number of Executive orders, soft talk on China policy, and the threat of open borders. These actions left the American people confused and diluted their faith in our institutions, but nothing made the American people feel more unsettled than the unprecedented second impeachment and trial of former President Donald J. Trump.

Impeachment is inherently political. The fallout is everything but. Last week, I was able to spend time talking to Tennesseans about what they saw and heard during the trial, and I was struck by how fiercely most of them spoke out against the very idea of it.

The House Managers didn't just fail to prove their case against the former President. They failed to convince the American people that the Members of the House of Representatives who supported impeachment acted in good faith when they drafted their single Article and transmitted it to the Senate for consideration.

Tennesseans saw no serious inquiry into the alleged connection between the former President's words and the actions of the dangerous rioters who breached the Capitol on January 6, 2021. They remain unpersuaded by the arguments the House Managers offered to prove the constitutionality of the trial itself. In fact, the only thing they remain firmly convinced of is that this second impeachment culminated in nothing but a partisan show trial designed to humiliate the former President and wipe the voices of more than 70 million Americans from the pages of history.

The Senate's vote to acquit the former President of these spurious charges put an end to the House Managers' charade, but it will take more than an entry into the Congressional Record to help the country rise above the enmity that fueled it. It is our duty to lead by example and get to work on behalf of the millions of Americans living under this cloud of anxiety, fear, and mistrust. I encourage my colleagues to quiet their hearts in the coming weeks and commit to doing the work that will put us on the path to economic recovery, quality in-person schooling, and a strong national defense. Only then will we be justified in asking those we serve to once again put their faith in us.

I would be remiss if I did not associate myself with the comments of the Republican Leader honoring Officer Eugene Goodman for his actions during the January 6, 2021 riot at the United States Capitol.

On that day, Officer Goodman found himself alone, facing off against a rushing tide of violence. Without blinking, he lured the mob away from the Senate chamber, protecting us from what we now know was an all but inevitable tragedy.

I was honored to celebrate these acts of bravery and self-sacrifice by joining the Senate's unanimous vote in support of S. 35, to award Officer Goodman the Congressional Gold Medal. I thank him for his courage and his commitment to duty, and for his willingness to continue to serve here in the Capitol.

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

Madam President, when President Biden addressed the Nation on Inauguration Day, he promised unity and bipartisanship. It was a big part of his inaugural address, and so far the Democrats here in Washington are not living up to that promise. Their message, and we saw this last week, is not unity; it is submit and conform.

On his very first day in office, President Biden rubberstamped 17 separate Executive orders. Since then, he has approved so many changes that a lot of Tennesseeans can barely keep track of the orders and memos and directives that are flying out of the Oval Office.

It is safe to say the only benchmark they have to work with is the number of lost jobs we will see as a result of all of this paper-and- pen governance and paperwork. Jobs gone--stroke of a pen.

The American people are very unsettled by this. I am hearing it from Democrats, Independents, Republicans, Libertarians.

Last week, I came to the floor, and I spoke in detail about how this lack of clarity about the future has made many Tennesseeans fearful of the impending changes to our national security policy. They are very unsettled.

So many of our veterans in Tennessee have talked with me about this. They don't like all this soft talk when it comes to talking about China and Russia and Iran and North Korea. They are worried about what comes next. The domestic policy mandates have done nothing at all to give reassurances or calm spirits.

Last week, the Senate Democrats put forth a budget proposal that treats struggling communities like hypotheticals that could work with theoretical changes, all created for a graduate-level economics exam. They are not dealing with real problems and real life.

For about 15 hours, we debated and voted on a fraction of the almost 900 amendments filed in an attempt to do some damage control to that budget resolution. But when Friday morning came and went, all the Democrats had to offer was a glaringly partisan resolution that blatantly contradicted President Biden's stated commitment to unity and bipartisanship.

And, you know what, in a perfect world, the solutions the Democrats have come up with just might work. But we do not live in a perfect world; we live in a fallen world.

This country is not created in the image of the Democratic Party. To anyone who has ever managed a small business budget, what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to do just does not make good common sense.

One of the top issues I hear about from people back home in Tennessee is this proposal they have for a $15-an-hour minimum wage. I feel I should remind my colleagues that resistance to this mandate doesn't come from a place of stinginess or classist hatred but from a place of absolute confidence that it will destroy small businesses, even with the phase-in period.

I have not heard from a single business owner who will be able to pay the wage and employ the same number of people--not one. They will have to let staff go.

A report by the Congressional Budget Office released just today echoes and confirms their concerns. By 2025, the Democrats' proposal will cut jobs for 1.4 million workers, at a time when workers are struggling to get back to work. So much for job creation, and we all know the best economic stimulus is a job.

Just 6 weeks ago, Congress passed a $900 billion COVID relief package. Very little of that money has been spent. Yet Democrats and the White House continue to demand trillions--that is right, trillions--in overbroad spending that targets no specific problem and has no actual bipartisan support. If that is not bad enough, billions of dollars from last year's bipartisan relief packages, all five of them, also remain unobligated.

So we are at $3.6 trillion in spending, and they are wanting another $1.9 trillion, with little idea of the effect that remaining unobligated funding will have on the economy. But still, the data shows that what has been spent already has made a difference and will continue to do so.

Relief should be timely. It should be targeted. It should be temporary. Those that need the help should get the help, but we do not need overbroad spending.

The Congressional Budget Office released another report just over a week ago showing that if we leave the laws governing how we tax and spend alone--leave them alone on the books, in force--the GDP will continue to rise and the economy will get back to its prepandemic health without, without Congress authorizing one more penny in relief spending.

So the American people want to know why, why are the Democrats claiming that the only solution to our present crisis is to spend as much as possible, as quickly as possible, without considering which sectors of the economy actually need the help, which families need help, which individuals need help.

What we do know is what we saw in 2009 and 2010 and 2011 and 2012 and 2013 and 2014 and 2015, which is that, if you

get in here and overspend without targeting, without direction, you slow the recovery. We know that. We watched it. We lived through it.

They are going to need a better answer than ``because we say so,'' ``because this is what we are going to do,'' because the people understand that the Federal deficit was historically large even before the pandemic. They know how debt works and that a big deficit means more of that Federal debt.

They also know that who holds that debt matters and that we are beholden, right now, to China, to OPEC, for trillions of dollars in that debt.

Scale that down for a minute. When that same thing happens to one of these small businesses, when they max their credit line, if they fall behind in their payroll, they can't plan for the future, they can't plan for emergencies, and they can't invest in their own success.

The same concepts apply to the Federal budget. You cannot tax and spend your way to prosperity. You have to have economic growth.

So I ask my colleagues: Why are you making decisions that are going to slow the recovery and slow the economic growth?

The Democrats' approach to planning for the future might sound good in theory, it might sound good in hypotheticals, but real-life economics is not. Future pandemics are not. The need to innovate and stay competitive in the warfighting domain is not. Those are real-life issues.

The Democrats have been so aggressive this past couple of weeks, and President Biden, in taking out the eraser and trying to erase 4 years of productive policy that benefited millions of Americans, and the people are starting to wonder what else they are going to throw away in favor of a very autocratic, authoritarian, empty vision for our Nation.

I yield the floor.