Floor Statements

The minority leader is recognized

Mr. President, the Senate is stunned and grieving this morning. Our dear friend and former colleague Senator Mike Enzi passed away last night following a serious bike accident this past weekend.

Mike was 77 years old and only about 7 months into retirement. Our friend was blessed with a great American life, and he lived it well. Mike was hugely accomplished but at the same time humble. He was powerful; he was influential but earnest and deeply kind. He was ambitious, but on behalf of the people of Wyoming, not personal gain or glory.

Mike's quarter-century career in the U.S. Senate capped a storied career in public service. He was elected mayor of Gillette, WY, at just 30 years old. He was a young husband, running a family business, but he saw an opportunity to put his shoulder to help his neighbors.

Well, to be more precise, our former colleague and Mike's predecessor, Al Simpson, gave him a not-so-subtle nudge. It was more like conscription. Gillette needed help, and this up-and-comer was exactly what the booming town needed at that time.

Diana agreed to let Mike throw his hat in the ring, and the rest is history. The mayor's office eventually gave way to the Wyoming House, then the State senate, and then this Senate.

Here, Mike built a two-part reputation that might have struck people as contradictory. On the one hand, Mike was a principled, hard-nosed conservative. He chaired the HELP Committee and the Budget Committee with a small businessman's painstaking financial eye. In fact, when he first unpacked his office, Mike was the Senate's only trained accountant. He was central to getting generational tax reform off the starting blocks. He was a policy leader in our conference. But at the same time, this principled westerner was also universally known as one of the kindest, most thoughtful, most respectful Senators on either side of the aisle.

Mike's famous 80-20 rule helped him find bipartisan common ground on a long list of significant issues. I know he was particularly proud of his focus on the global fight against AIDS.

On the HELP Committee, Mike cut important deals with his counterpart and ideological opposite, Ted Kennedy. Neither Senator walked away from his principles; they just wanted to find where those principles actually fit together.

Mike's policy wins were many. But at the end of the day, Mike knew what everyone else around here knew: His greatest accomplishment was winning Diana's hand and building their family together.

Their marriage, their partnership, was a Senate institution unto itself. The Enzis' kindness overflowed into legendary parties and generous gifts for the entire Senate community, especially the behind- the scenes all-stars who do not get thanked nearly enough.

So Mike Enzi departed the Senate having changed policy and law for the better because of his mind. And now he has departed this life having changed his friends and his colleagues for the better because of his heart.

Today, the entire Senate stands in solidarity with Diana at this tragic time, which has come entirely too soon. Our prayers are with her, their three children, and their grandchildren and the entire family.

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

Madam President, this weekend, we received the bad news that our friend and former colleague, Mike Enzi, was involved in a serious accident while riding his bicycle.

Mike's colleagues on both sides of the aisle were sorry enough to see him depart the Chamber and begin his well-earned next chapter just a few months ago. Mike and Diana were a fantastic Senate couple in every respect, from major legislative accomplishments to the generosity and kindness they showed to everyone from Senate staff to the pages. So I know Members on both sides of the aisle are very much thinking of Mike at this time. We pray for his health and for the entire Enzi family

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

Madam President, with COVID-19 cases ticking up all across the country, with some bureaucrats and elected officials actually talking about reimposing various measures on the American people, the Biden administration continues to let illegal immigrants pour across our southern border, and reportedly, they are considering loosening our border security even more.

Remember when the Biden campaign's rhetoric and then the Biden administration's early actions led to a rush on the border. They tried to wave it off as a seasonal, springtime surge, but, of course, that wasn't true. The numbers just keep climbing.

Customs and Border Protection had more encounters on the southern border in June than they had in May, nearly 190,000 encounters last month alone--the highest number in 21 years. Law enforcement is coming across huge groups of hundreds of individuals. With almost 3 months still remaining in fiscal year 2021, CPB has already encountered more illegal immigrants than it did in the entirety--the entirety--of fiscal 2019, which was, of course, before COVID. We have exceeded that total with almost 3 months to go.

The Biden administration claims they are addressing the crisis by simply speeding up the rate at which they get migrants out of custody, out of border facilities, as if simply reducing the head count was the goal. Of course, that is no solution at all if the individuals are simply being released into the interior of our country.

Ordinarily, legal immigration is part of the heart of the United States of America, and it always has been, but it simply is not a universal human right for everybody in the Western Hemisphere who would like a better job or to break our rules and turn up at the border. No country, none--no country in the world--could govern itself that way.

In fact, this ongoing crisis is supremely unfair and uncompassionate to the men, women, and children whom it continues to entice into the scorching desert Sun. Border Patrol agents are having to double as humanitarian workers and EMTs. They rescue people who get lost, who are at risk of drowning, who have been simply abandoned by smugglers or traffickers.

Amidst all this, in the thick of this crisis, the Biden administration has spent weeks flirting with ending its title 42 authority, declaring the COVID emergency to be finished and over at our southern border and letting even more people stream across. COVID is already on the rise again, the border is already in crisis, and the President and his team want to end the emergency safeguards at our border? Reimpose COVID precautions on the American people but end the COVID emergency for illegal immigrants? How does that make any sense?

Meanwhile, our Democratic friends here on Capitol Hill say they want to push a massive amnesty plan into the reckless taxing-and-spending spree they want to pass later this year on a party-line vote. As if damaging inflation, soaring costs, lower real wages, and more debt were not punishment enough for the American people, Democrats also want to stuff a massive amnesty plan into their tax-and-spend spree. It is like they have systematically identified the worst idea for American families on every single issue and set about rolling them into one huge, reckless proposal.

Madam President, now on a completely different matter, last year, on a broad and a bipartisan basis, Congress passed sanctions that were designed to block Russia from completing its Nord Stream 2 pipeline project. The Biden administration recently waived those sanctions to allow the pipeline to move forward. Now it appears the administration has cut a deal with Germany that will allow the pipeline to become operational.

The initial press reporting about this deal does not inspire confidence that this administration is taking the Russian threat as seriously as it should, nor does it indicate that we are standing with our Ukrainian partners, who are struggling to defend themselves against Moscow's aggression. The administration appears to have ignored the broader implications of the Nord Stream 2 project and Russia's approach to Europe writ large

Green energy initiatives or promises of diplomatic meetings will not address the real risks Moscow poses--not even close. Just a couple of years ago, Washington Democrats were absolutely melting down over their belief that the prior administration was being too soft on Russia and leaving Ukraine in the lurch. Where is the outrage today?

For several years there, my colleagues across the aisle sounded like big-time Russia hawks, so I hope they will now join Republicans in pressing the administration to explain this curious decision, to explain how President Biden intends to impose meaningful costs on Moscow for all its misdeeds at the same time they have America greasing the skids--greasing the skids--for this Putin pipeline.

Madam President, now on one final matter, next week, President Biden is set to meet with Prime Minister of Iraq Mustafa al- Kadhimi. The meeting comes at an important moment for our shared efforts toward peace and security in Iraq and the entire region.

ISIS has been significantly weakened in Iraq and Syria after years of shared efforts, but the terrorist organization remains a grave threat. And ISIS is far from the only threat Iraqis and the Iraqi Government are facing. For years, Iran has systematically sought to undermine Iraq's sovereignty. Iran's well-armed proxy of militias report to Tehran, not Baghdad, but they operate inside Iraq.

These groups have conducted campaigns of intimidation and assassination against peaceful protesters and independent journalists in Iraq, the same brutal methods they employ in Syria, Lebanon, and in Iran itself. These Iranian-backed militias are also threatening our own American interests in Iraq. Iran wants to pick fights with a superpower while making the nation of Iraq bear the risk.

The fact is, the United States is in Iraq at the invitation of their government. We are there to support the

Iraqis and to help the Iraqis kill terrorists and defend their sovereignty. Our presence in Iraq also helps our operations in Syria against ISIS and al-Qaida.

Again, it is pretty obvious the terrorist threat is not over. Remember, the disastrous withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan may not simply be felt in that country; a Taliban victory and resurgence of al-Qaida could embolden jihadists all over the world, just as the rise of ISIS did in the wake of President Obama's withdrawal from Iraq.

As we watch Afghanistan descend into chaos and ISIS continue to lash out in Iraq and Syria, now is not the time for either the United States or Iraq to pretend that our shared mission is over. As I have warned again and again, terrorists don't observe our political timetables. They don't pack up just because we lose faith or lose focus.

So let's hope this administration is already learning from their mistakes in Afghanistan. When the Iraqi Prime Minister visits next week, the White House should provide strong assurances that the United States will stand strong with our friends and continue to support our partners who are standing up to terror and to extremism.

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

Mr. President, today, the Democratic leader appears to be intent on calling a vote he knows will fail. For several weeks now, Republican and Democratic Senators have been working together, trying to assemble a bipartisan package for our Nation's infrastructure.

It is an important and a complex subject. They are talking about big projects and big sums of money. They are still talking, still working, still negotiating in good faith across the aisle. But these discussions have yet to conclude. There is no outcome yet, no bipartisan agreement, no text, nothing for the Congressional Budget Office to evaluate, and, certainly, nothing on which to vote, not yet.

So, obviously, if the Democratic leader tries to force a cloture vote on a bill that does not exist, it will fail.

Around here, we typically write the bills before we vote on them. That is the custom. Of course, here in the Senate, a failed cloture vote does not mean no forever.

In the middle of the early COVID crisis, back in March of 2020, with Americans under stay-home orders and financial markets plummeting, Senate Democrats withheld cloture on the CARES Act multiple times so they could continue haggling behind the scenes.

Now, this was during a real emergency. Every day, every hour, was crucial. But Senate Democrats blocked cloture multiple times until various details were fine-tuned to their liking.

Here is what the Democratic leader said while his side tanked those cloture votes last March--March of 2020:

The Majority Leader was well aware of how this vote would

go before it happened, but he chose to move forward with it

anyway, even though negotiations are continuing. So who is

playing games?

That was the Democratic leader in March of 2020, in the middle of a national emergency.

That, of course, was a fast-moving global crisis, with bipartisan text already in hand. There was a bill. Yet Senate Democrats insisted on taking their time in the middle of this national 100-year pandemic. Now, we are talking about long-term infrastructure investments that will play out over many years, but he wants to vote before any agreement even exists.

So this stunt is set to fail. The Democratic leader will be free to change his vote and move to reconsider whenever a bipartisan product actually exists.

Mr. President, now, on another matter, President Biden campaigned on a pledge not to raise income taxes on the vast majority of Americans. But the latest reckless taxing-and-spending spree that Democrats are cooking up would crush our country with a historic set of sweeping tax hikes.

Here is one of the targets in their crosshairs: Family farms.

It appears our colleagues' plan will eliminate tax rules that allow family property to be passed down to the next generation without facing a new devastating tax burden.

Without the fix in question--the so-called stepped-up basis for capital gains taxes--scores of family businesses across America will feel a massive squeeze.

In States like mine, family farms drive the rural economy. But as I have heard from many of my State's family farmers, it is operations like theirs that are especially--especially--at risk.

One Kentucky farmer said his family has worked the same land in Muhlenberg County for 150 years. He had hoped--hoped--to one day pass his property along to his children, just like it was passed along to him. But after generations spent improving and investing in the same farm, he is worried it could all be gone in the blink of an eye.

Another Kentuckian described how her family, like many farmers, is asset rich but cash poor. If the stepped-up basis is eliminated, her family could lose the home, barns, machinery, and fields that have been their life's work.

The Farm Bureau in my State warned that what Washington Democrats are trying to do would penalize farmers for wanting--for wanting--to continue a tradition, which we all depend upon. If the stepped-up basis is eliminated, generations of accumulated work would be ripped-- literally ripped from the hands of America's farming families.

Family farming in the Commonwealth isn't just a way of life; it is considered a birthright. But if Democrats foist this bill for their reckless taxing-and-spending spree on rural America, a lot of this heritage could be literally ripped out of families' hands and put on the auction block.

And who will gobble it up then? Who will buy this land?

One recent report suggested that one of the biggest bidders for American family farmland these days is actually the Chinese.

Later today, Ranking Member Boozman and some of our colleagues on the Agriculture Committee will be coming to the floor to sound the alarm about the ways that Democrats' reckless tax-and-spend spree could threaten farm families and rural America.

Deaths should not be a taxable event. The family farms that help feed us deserve our support, not sabotage from Washington

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

Mr. President, later today, the Senate will vote on President Biden's nominee to serve as general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board.

There actually shouldn't be a vacancy in this position. When President Biden took office, the person serving as the NLRB's top lawyer was still in the middle of a term to which the Senate had confirmed him. He was doing his job, serving the country, and had no intention to skip out of his responsibilities early.

But less than 30 minutes after pledging to heal and unify the country in his inaugural address, President Biden broke precedent and threatened to fire Peter Robb unless he resigned prematurely that very day.

At the very first instant that the new President's statements about norms, institutions, and governance ran up against the demands of the far left--well, the decision didn't take very long. Where Senate confirmation and fixed terms were supposed to create independence, this administration just wanted partisan loyalty.

Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident. It has actually been a pattern. This small world of independent agencies has offered us actually a case study in the gap between the administration's unifying rhetoric on the one hand and its divisive actions on the other.

Back in March, the Biden administration took aim at another Senate- confirmed official, the general counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This time, a full 2 years before her term was set to expire. Sharon Gustafson had been engaged in important work, particularly in defense of religious freedom in the workplace. But the President didn't want to wait for our system to play out properly. He broke with norms and he fired her.

Just this month, we witnessed the firing of Andrew Saul, the head of the Social Security Administration. Listen to this. He was just 2 years into a 6-year term. Mr. Saul had kept a critical agency functioning through a historically challenging year. He was not some partisan hack. We are talking about someone the Senate confirmed with 77 votes--77 votes--a bipartisan supermajority for Mr. Saul.

But powerful liberal interests got the President's ear. They wanted their own hand-picked insider. Norms and precedents had to go out the window. Now, the American people deserve to trust in the independence of crucial watchdog agencies like these, but with these firings, this administration has instead decided to explore frontiers in partisan hardball.

We just spent years listening to the left and the media express outrage over personnel decisions and dismissals, many of which amounted to a heck of a lot less than the three I just mentioned

Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, later today, the Senate is set to do some bipartisan legislating.

Back in 1984, Congress passed a Victims of Crime Act, which includes an important Federal program called a Crime Victims Fund. When criminals who commit Federal crimes are charged fines and penalties, some of that money flows into this fund. It goes to State-level programs that help crime victims with services, like counseling and emergency shelters. It also helps compensate the victims directly with their expenses, like medical costs, mental health, funeral expenses, and lost wages. Some of the money also goes specifically to fight child abuse.

This fund needs to rest on firm financial footing, but right now it doesn't have that firm footing. Its balance has been shrinking fast. Congress needs to act to prevent big cuts to victims' services, particularly in rural areas.

A number of Senators on both sides have come together and produced bipartisan reforms that will strengthen the program and keep assistance flowing to the survivors of Federal crimes.

The junior Senator from Pennsylvania has a further amendment to make sure the program can't be used as part of budgetary shell games that deliberately cloud Federal accounting. I will support both Senator Toomey's amendment and our colleagues' legislation later today.

But on this subject, for goodness' sake, elected officials should not just be racing to replenish the Crime Victims Fund before it runs out. Leaders at local, State, and Federal levels should be acting to confront the surge in violent crime that is plaguing our Nation.

For about a year now, the political left has grown obsessed with the notion that police officers are inherently bad, policing is inherently evil, and what vulnerable neighborhoods really need is less enforcement of the laws.

As one House Member has informed us:

Defunding police means defunding police.

Another put it this way:

Defunding the police isn't radical, it is real.

Well, academic research has confirmed something troubling. The broad anti-police backlash that sometimes follows high-profile, police- involved incidents subsequently leads to less safety, more crime, and more murders. Sure enough, murders have shot up in cities and communities all across our country.

My hometown of Louisville has seen 66 percent more homicides than we had seen by this time last year--66 percent more. Last year was a record year for carjackings and yet Louisville is on pace to match it once again. The city's police department is short more than 200 sworn officers due to low recruitment, low morale, and resignations.

Leaders should be working to contain this damage, but instead of delivering a sober, responsible message, many of the most prominent Democratic politicians instead grabbed their megaphones and amplified the anti-police sentiment as loud as possible.

As I have noted before, attacking and insulting the police is not just a bad strategy for public safety across the board; the data shows it is an especially disruptive approach to advancing racial justice.

The truth is this:

Larger police forces save lives and the lives saved are

disproportionately Black lives.

That is another expert study.

So I am glad the Senate will take the important step today of reforming and strengthening the Crime Victims Fund. It certainly belies any notion that we can't legislate in a bipartisan way. We absolutely can and we do. When a bipartisan outcome is what the Democratic majority leader truly wants, it actually makes it possible.

But I wish anti-crime, pro-police, pro-public safety attitudes and policies could be just as bipartisan at the State, local, and Federal levels as today's vote will likely be. Standing up for law enforcement and the innocent people they protect should never be limited to one side of the aisle.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.