Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the situation on our southern border is bad and getting worse. Last month saw overall migrant totals hit a nearly two-decade high. More unaccompanied minors arrived than during any prior month on record.

These kids, crowded in underequipped facilities, tended by increasingly overwhelmed personnel, have become the heart-wrenching face of this crisis. Yet the most resolve, the most strength that this administration has shown on the border has been their commitment to their talking points, their refusal to call the crisis a crisis.

This past weekend, the President of the United States himself slipped up and used that forbidden word. But--get this--he was then overruled by his own staff. Yesterday, his Press Secretary said President Biden actually didn't intend to describe the situation as a crisis. Fascinating.

But then, yesterday, at last, we saw this administration take some new action on immigration. Finally, some proactive steps. Memos were issued to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and CBP with new instruction. Were they new policies to stem the crisis? No. Stepped-up enforcement? No. A way to fix the administration's signals that have induced these new waves of

vulnerable people to try their luck? No, not this either.

Here was the big news: The government will be adopting new, more politically correct rhetoric. Under this administration, we will no longer have ``illegal aliens,'' not because they will secure the border; just because they now will be called ``noncitizens'' or ``undocumented migrants'' and so on.

These priorities are almost a parody of leftwing governance: not securing the border, not a better plan for the children, just woke proofreading. This is not going to get the job done.

Opioid Epidemic

Mr. President, on a related matter, of course, the flow of actual people is not our only border security problem. Americans are dying and communities are being hollowed out because foreign drug dealers and profiteers have taken our opioid crisis as a business opportunity.

Fentanyl and fentanyl analogues that pour into our country impose a staggering, tragic loss. In 2020, the CDC recorded more overdose deaths than any year on record. They attributed the spike primarily to synthetic opioids like fentanyl.

My home State of Kentucky logged a 50-percent year-on-year increase in overdose deaths. Fentanyl and its constantly changing analogues are as toxic and lethal an illegal drug as there is. We are talking about substances that can be orders of magnitude more potent than morphine.

Customs and Border Protection say fentanyl seizures jumped more than 70 percent in fiscal year 2020. They are on pace for another record year in 2021. Much of this poison is manufactured in and exported from China.

The scope of this crisis is truly staggering. But incredibly, some on the political left want to respond to this national crisis by letting the criminal status of fentanyl analogues lapse this spring.

People want to let these drugs become legal. They actually want to let these drugs become legal. I am not making this up. Fentanyl analogues are poised to fall off the schedule of controlled substances in just a few weeks if Congress does not act, and some corners of the soft-on-crime left want us to do nothing. They are unhappy with the sentences that be can be imposed on drug dealers as a result.

These people are seriously arguing--seriously arguing that we should let these substances flow even more freely through American streets and American neighborhoods, costing who knows how many additional American lives to help some drug dealer avoid prison.

I understand that even among Democrats who say they don't want to decriminalize these poisons, there is some effort to kick the can a few months with a temporary extension so that a soft-on-crime bill could be crafted and forcibly paired with this step.

Look, these are terrible ideas, just terrible ideas. The right thing to do is obvious. This isn't a trick question. We need to permanently schedule fentanyl analogues, take this permanent step to protect Americans, and be done with it. We should not just kick the can down the road for 2 months or 5 months or 12 months. We should not let this commonsense step be held hostage for liberal horse trading. We simply need to do the right thing.

Congress cannot hold American lives and communities hostage to try to grease the skids for drug dealers. Continuing to ban these analogues is not even a recipe for mass incarceration. The main effect is to cut down on the incoming supply of these poisons by changing the incentives for producers in China and other foreign countries.

The Department of Justice reports that, in the last 3 years, only 8 people--8 people would have qualified for the mandatory minimum sentences that some people are complaining about. More than anything else, scheduling these terrible drugs is a harm reduction and prevention tool. It works upstream. It disincentivizes their manufacture and their import into our country.

Too many of our neighbors have already been taken from us. Too many communities have already been hollowed out. There is simply no excuse for inaction.

It should not just be a Republican priority to slam the door on the opioid epidemic in every possible way. This should actually be a bipartisan no-brainer. Let's permanently schedule these analogues and keep this poison out of our land and out of our citizens' bloodstreams.

Afghanistan

Mr. President, now, on one final matter, this afternoon, President Biden is sending his top national security officials to brief Members on his misguided plan to abandon the battlefield in Afghanistan.

As I said when this decision was announced, the enemies that threaten America, our allies, and the people of Afghanistan are not vanquished. Taliban retribution and repression and the terror of al-Qaida, ISIS, and the Haqqani Network will likely only grow after we have left.

I know many colleagues on both sides of the aisle share my concerns. I expect that the administration's representatives will face tough questions about the rationale behind their plan for a rushed withdrawal.

So it is appropriate to ask: Does the Taliban share the administration's commitment to a negotiated solution, to not harming Afghan women or girls or seeking vengeance on those who have worked with the United States to root out terror? Somehow I doubt it.

Does the administration have a plan for keeping terrorists off- balance in the absence of troops and leverage in the region? Will it seek to maintain the 2001 AUMF, which authorizes the ongoing counterterrorism operations that have actually kept our homeland safe for 20 years?

How does the administration plan to maintain our insight into terrorist activities or our ability to strike them without a presence on the ground, to sustain our partners who are doing the fighting? I worked hard to find common ground with this administration on foreign policy, but if the White House is serious about making America, our allies, and our interests more secure, it will need to start tacking toward a more enduring approach centered on strength, grounded in reality and not wishful thinking.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, time and again, prominent Democrats show they are no longer content to work within the ground rules and norms of our institutions. They prefer to threaten the institutions themselves.

We have seen it in Presidential elections when Democrats say our democracy is sacrosanct when they win but illegitimate and broken if Republicans win.

We have seen it with the Senate's rules. Democrats just spent 4 years not only praising but using the legislative filibuster. But now that they hold the majority, they say it has actually been intrinsically evil all along and must be scrapped.

We are seeing it right now with voting regulations, where the mere fact that sometimes Republicans win elections has Democrats wanting to rewrite all 50 States' election laws right here in Washington and turn the Federal Election Commission into a partisan body.

And then there is the judiciary. In recent years, we have seen the Democratic leader stand on the steps of the Court and threaten that specific Justices ``won't know what hit them'' if they didn't rule the way he wanted. We have seen a number of Democratic Senators send a threatening brief suggesting the Court might need to be ``restructured'' if its rulings upset liberals.

Last week, President Biden, who was marketed to the country as a moderate and institutionalist, jumped in with both feet. He set up a pseudo-academic commission to study the merits of packing the Supreme Court. It is just an attempt to clothe this transparent power play in fake legitimacy.

But alas, the far left cannot even wait for the fake theatrics of the fake study to play out. Today, Democrats in the Senate and the House have announced they will once again threaten judicial independence from the steps of the Court. They are introducing a bill to add four new seats to the Supreme Court so that Democrats can pack the Court, destroy its legitimacy, and guarantee the rulings that liberals want.

Across the ideological spectrum, top jurists have been outspoken on what a terrible idea Court packing would be. The late liberal icon, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, explicitly warned against Court packing saying: ``If anything would make the Court appear partisan, it would be that.'' ``Nine seems to be a good number''--Justice Ginsburg.

Justice Stephen Breyer reaffirmed his own opposition just last week. The public, by the way, agrees. They see through this discredited concept. One survey late last year showed that a clear majority of Americans opposed packing the Supreme Court.

But the farthest left activists aren't interested in the common good. They want power. And the same Democrats and the same corporate media that spent the last 4 years hyperventilating and declaring a new constitutional crisis was under way every 30 seconds seem to be perfectly content to play along.

Now, if Republicans had introduced a bill to add four Supreme Court seats for the last President to fill, there would have been weeks of wall-to-wall outrage on every newspaper and cable TV channel nonstop. Now it seems the main strategies are either to shrug off, look the other way, or to actively play along and somehow lend credence.

It is not about whether this insane bill becomes law. Part of the point here is the threats themselves. The left wants a sword dangling over the Justices when they weigh the facts in every case. As the Democratic leader threatened just 2 years ago, Democrats want the Justices to know that they will ``pay the price'' for rulings that Democrats don't like.

The left wants these swords dangling over the Senate and State legislators and independent judges. The threats are the point. The hostage-taking is the point. And responsible people across the political spectrum have an absolute duty to denounce this.

(The remarks of Mr. McConnell pertaining to the introduction of S. 1133 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.''

Now, Madam President, on one final matter, over the years, a lot of talented Kentuckians have joined my team at the start of their careers. I have gotten to watch them hone their skills and grow into real leaders.

Unfortunately, the privilege of working with ultratalented young people also means you often see a real all-star fly the nest, and today I have to offer a reluctant goodbye.

Katelyn Conner Bunning was from Louisville. She joined my personal office almost 11 years ago. She has done just about every job there is, from answering phones to mastering policy issues.

For the last 4 years, I have relied on her extensively as my legislative director. Katelyn has been a key adviser to me, a role model to junior staffers, a key link between my leadership office and my Kentucky-focused staff. Who better to help me deliver for the Commonwealth than the daughter of a former Mr. Kentucky Basketball?

Along the way, some of the trickiest issues facing the Bluegrass have landed on Katelyn's desk: securing retired miners' pensions and healthcare, revitalizing abandoned coalfields, strengthening Kentucky schools and helping students succeed, delivering certainty for Kentucky farmers while opening new doors for industrial hemp, even protecting kids' health by raising the minimum tobacco purchase age to 21.

Last year, I asked Katelyn to take charge of improving safety and medication standards in the thoroughbred racing industry. Even as a national publication was calling to end this sport altogether, Katelyn assembled owners, trainers, jockeys, breeders, and fans to preserve Kentucky's signature industry.

This is a long list of accomplishments. Yet it is only a short summary of Katelyn's impact on my team and our Commonwealth. She has set very high standards. She has helped everyone achieve them.

We are certainly going to miss her around here, but I am sure her husband Eric and their new daughter Alice are looking forward to seeing a bit more of her every day.

So, Katelyn, thank you for your ability, for your friendship. I wish you and your family all the best.

Mr. President, now, on an entirely different matter, colleagues in Congress and my fellow Kentuckians were heartbroken last June when our dear friend, Carol Leavell Barr, suddenly and unexpectedly passed away.

She left behind two beautiful young daughters and an adoring husband in Congressman Andy Barr. She was only 39 years old. Since then, we have learned her fatal heart attack was likely the result of an underlying condition called mitral valve prolapse.

Carol was diagnosed at a young age. Like millions of Americans with heart valve defects, she lived for many years with no apparent symptoms. Tragically, it only took an instant for her condition to turn deadly. Approximately 25,000 Americans each year lose their lives from this heart valve disease. Her passing deprived the Barr family of an extraordinary wife and mother. We all lost a warm and uplifting friend.

One of the most troubling aspects of this syndrome is just how much we still don't know. So Congressman Barr is taking action. He introduced the Cardiovascular Advances in Research and Opportunities Legacy Act, the CAROL Act. It would encourage new research into valvular heart disease, help us better understand the risks, and bring together top experts to identify potential treatments.

With this legislation, we can help prevent more families from enduring this tragedy. More than 120 House colleagues have already cosponsored the CAROL Act. It has also earned the support of major health advocacy groups.

So today, I am proud to introduce the CAROL Act here in the Senate. I am grateful to partner with Senator Sinema, one of Congressman Barr's friends from their days serving together in the House. This important legislation is a fitting tribute to a wonderful Kentuckian. It embodies Carol's lifetime of service to others, and I look forward to its passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, now, on an entirely different matter, colleagues in Congress and my fellow Kentuckians were heartbroken last June when our dear friend, Carol Leavell Barr, suddenly and unexpectedly passed away.

She left behind two beautiful young daughters and an adoring husband in Congressman Andy Barr. She was only 39 years old. Since then, we have learned her fatal heart attack was likely the result of an underlying condition called mitral valve prolapse.

Carol was diagnosed at a young age. Like millions of Americans with heart valve defects, she lived for many years with no apparent symptoms. Tragically, it only took an instant for her condition to turn deadly. Approximately 25,000 Americans each year lose their lives from this heart valve disease. Her passing deprived the Barr family of an extraordinary wife and mother. We all lost a warm and uplifting friend.

One of the most troubling aspects of this syndrome is just how much we still don't know. So Congressman Barr is taking action. He introduced the Cardiovascular Advances in Research and Opportunities Legacy Act, the CAROL Act. It would encourage new research into valvular heart disease, help us better understand the risks, and bring together top experts to identify potential treatments.

With this legislation, we can help prevent more families from enduring this tragedy. More than 120 House colleagues have already cosponsored the CAROL Act. It has also earned the support of major health advocacy groups.

So today, I am proud to introduce the CAROL Act here in the Senate. I am grateful to partner with Senator Sinema, one of Congressman Barr's friends from their days serving together in the House. This important legislation is a fitting tribute to a wonderful Kentuckian. It embodies Carol's lifetime of service to others, and I look forward to its passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, ``Biden takes the easy way out of Afghanistan. The likely result is disaster.'' This is the morning's lead editorial from one of the Nation's most liberal newspapers.

The administration has decided to abandon U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, which have helped keep radical Islamic terrorism in check, and bizarrely, they decided to do so by September 11. Apparently, we are to help our adversaries ring in the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks by giftwrapping the country and handing it right back to them.

Here is what this administration's own national intelligence threat assessment says will happen:

The Taliban is likely to make gains on the battlefield, and

the Afghan government will struggle to hold the Taliban at

bay if the coalition withdraws support.

This is a quote from this administration.

In 2019, the Democratic leader and the now chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee expressed outrage that the previous administration considered hosting Taliban officials for discussions around the date of September 11.

But now a Democratic administration is going to skip the negotiations and just surrender an entire country back to the Taliban on the very same date? Our President should remember what happened when the Obama administration let political considerations rush a retreat from Iraq-- total chaos and bloodshed and ISIS.

Two years ago, I wrote a bipartisan amendment that warned a Republican administration against recklessly withdrawing from Afghanistan or Syria. A supermajority of Senators right here voted for it. A supermajority of Senators voted for it, warning that the terrorist threat had not abated. Where are the Democratic voices today? I hope we will hear from some of them.

Unfortunately, this mistake in Afghanistan is one of several instances of this new administration's surrendering leverage without making America, our allies, or our interests more secure.

In January, President Biden extended the New START agreement with Russia by Executive order for 5 years--no strings attached, no concessions secured, not even a shorter term extension to keep up pressure on Russia to cooperate on a better agreement. Just a gift--a gift.

And then there is Iran. Senior administration officials have gone from denigrating the former administration's ``maximum pressure'' strategy to simply begging for direct talks with Iran, to proactively offering to remove sanctions that are ``inconsistent with the JCPOA.'' So which sanctions exactly are inconsistent with the JCPOA? Our sanctions on Iran's terrorist organizations or its ballistic missile program?

Most Republicans would be thrilled if President Biden could actually secure a better deal that holds Iran accountable. Giving up the leverage of sanctions before we even get to the table--before we even get to the table--or just return to a bad deal is certainly not a good sign.

It would be hard to support any deal that isn't part of a broader strategy that also confronts the nonnuclear threats Iran poses to America and to the region.

On China, the administration's tough talk has been welcome, but its proposal to cut defense spending after inflation suggests there is less interest in walking the walk. We will not keep pace with China and Russia by cutting defense spending to placate fringe parts of the far left.

The American people need and they deserve a foreign policy that puts our security, our partners, and our interests ahead of the reflexive desire to break with the last 4 years at any cost--at any cost.

If this administration wants a successful legacy on the world stage, if they want accomplishments that will endure, they need to put American strength back at the center and come back to a bipartisan mainstream.

Now, Mr. President, on a completely different matter, we know Democrats are desperate to create a national controversy over voting regulations, but the facts and the truth keep getting in the way.

For more than a year, we have seen a coordinated campaign to call any

American institution that occasionally frustrates liberal activists an evil relic of Jim Crow. Let me say that again. For more than a year, we have seen a coordinated campaign to call any American institution that occasionally frustrates liberal activists an evil relic of Jim Crow.

When these talking points came into circulation last summer, their focus was the legislative filibuster here in the Senate, except it was Senate Democrats who had just used the legislative filibuster to kill Senator Tim Scott's police reform, body camera, and anti-lynching legislation.

Two days ago, our colleague the assistant Democratic leader suggested he now opposes the filibuster because it was used back in the 1920s to block an anti-lynching bill. To be clear, our colleague from Illinois was a loud and proud defender of the current Senate rules as recently at 2018. This isn't about the 1920s. It is not about the 1920s. It is about Democrats wanting different sets of rules, depending on whether or not they happen to be in the majority.

Our colleague didn't need to go back nine decades to find instances of Democrats' filibustering a Republican anti-lynching bill. He only needed to go back 9 months. He didn't have to go back to the 1920s but just go back 9 months to find an example of Democrats filibustering an anti-lynching bill.

Last summer, 44 Senate Democrats locked arms and filibustered Tim Scott's police reform, body camera, and anti-lynching legislation because it was not far left enough or anti-police enough. That is the irony here. If any recent Senate filibusters have been reminiscent of the 1920s, it was when Democrats killed a Republican anti-lynching bill just last summer.

Here is the truth. Our colleagues can't defend any of the details of their radical policies. So they want to change the subject--change the subject--by any means necessary.

Look at voting regulations. The recent bill passed in the State of Georgia mandates more days of early voting than plenty of Democratic- run States allow. It continues no-excuse absentee voting, which some blue States do not allow. There is no factual standard by which its overall approach is radically more restrictive than the rules in place in many other States, blue or red.

The Washington Post has given the White House its worst rating, four--four Pinocchios--for repeated lies about Georgia and the election law. But the President and his staff just keep on doubling down.

One of our colleagues who represents Georgia put his name to a public statement--to a public statement--with inaccurate information about the bill.

In the Rules Committee, the Democratic leader shouted angry attacks at things the Georgia law simply doesn't do.

Why the fake narratives? Why the falsehoods? We all know why. For more than 2 years, Washington Democrats have been desperate to pass a sweeping partisan takeover of our democracy. It is packed--packed--with shameless provisions that have nothing to do with ballot access.

They want to take the bipartisan Federal Election Commission, make it a partisan body, and give Democrats the majority. They want to send taxpayers' money to political campaigns. They want to expand Washington's policing of Americans' speech. They want to neuter voter ID and mandate ballot harvesting in all 50 States. Strangely enough, for multiple years now, this exact same power grab has been their answer to every changing circumstance. When they didn't like the outcome of the 2016 election, Democrats said our democracy was broken and only this takeover could fix it. Then, in 2020, they got the result they liked. Suddenly, this same bill became the way to simply preserve a system that functioned well.

There seems to be no situation where this attempted power grab is not the Democrats' answer. I think we can learn tomorrow that an asteroid was hurtling toward Earth, and Democrats would say our only hope was to pass H.R. 1.

This isn't about responding to recent State laws. It is not about justice or equity. Washington Democrats want to rewrite all 50 States' election laws. They want to take over the Federal Election Commission. And they have been trying out different justifications for multiple years straight to get what they want.

Any Federal law addressing the ground rules of our democracy has a special obligation to be sober, to be factual, and to be bipartisan. The Senate has done just that in the past. We have passed reasonable laws by huge, bipartisan margins making it easier to vote but harder to cheat.

So ask yourself: Why won't Democrats today deal in truth and facts? Why do they keep using the same smears to distract from their policies? Why are they hell-bent on a bill that passed the House with purely partisan support but bipartisan opposition? Talk about tipping your hand.

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

Mr. President, as we speak, for the second time this year, a fallen officer of the U.S. Capitol Police lies in honor under the Capitol dome.

This morning, Officer Billy Evans was welcomed here for a final time by grieving comrades and a Senate family that is immensely grateful for his life, his friendship, and his ultimate sacrifice.

Officer Evans died defending the Capitol, its institutions, and the thousands of people who come here to do the people's business. The circumstances of his killing remind us of the dangers that USCP officers swear, train, and prepare to meet whenever they might arise.

Yet, to that serious task, to his intense responsibilities, Officer Evans brought a spirit and strength of character that leaves us all at the Capitol with memories of kindness and friendship.

Today, I know our colleagues are holding Officer Evans and his family he leaves behind close in our thoughts and our prayers. His sacrifice will not be forgotten.

Mr. President, now on a completely different matter, just moments ago, new reporting suggests the Biden administration plans to turn tail and abandon the fight in Afghanistan.

Precipitously withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan is a grave mistake. It is a retreat in the face of an enemy that has not yet been vanquished and abdication of American leadership.

Leaders in both parties, including me, offered criticism when the prior administration floated the concept of a reckless withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan. Those same voices in both parties should be equally concerned about the Biden administration's announcement today. A reckless pullback like this would abandon our Afghan, regional, and our NATO partners in a shared fight against terrorists that we have not yet won. It will also specifically abandon the women of Afghanistan, whose individual freedoms and human rights will be imperiled.

It did not have to unfold like this. Today in Afghanistan the fighting is borne almost exclusively by our local partners. We have successfully solicited more buy-in and more support from foreign partners as well. Our NATO allies have particularly been begging-- begging--the United States to stay by their side. As a result, there was broad political support for a sustainable and residual presence to backstop the progress we have made.

In 2019, Republicans and Democrats joined hands to support an amendment I authored that cautioned against precipitous retreats from Afghanistan and Syria. A supermajority of Senators voted for it. A supermajority of Senators voted for it.

That amendment called upon the administration--the previous one--``to certify whether conditions have been met for the enduring defeat of al Qaeda and ISIS before initiating any further significant withdrawal of United States forces from [Syria or Afghanistan].''

Can President Biden certify that right now? We have seen this movie before, multiple times. Ten years ago, when President Obama let politics dictate the terms of our involvement in Iraq, those failed decisions invited the rise of ISIS.

It was our hasty abandonment of Afghanistan in the 1990s that allowed the Taliban to grab power in a bloody civil war and create the safe haven for terrorism that led to September the 11th, 2001.

Conflicts do not simply end. They are won or they are lost. America and American administrations must be in the business of winning. Al- Qaida and other radical Islamist terrorists have not yet been defeated.

There is no reason to believe the Taliban will abandon al-Qaida if we leave. We know we cannot conduct effective counterterrorism operations without presence and partners on the ground.

Foreign terrorists will not leave the United States alone simply because our politicians have grown tired of taking the fight to them. The President needs

to explain to the American people why he thinks abandoning our partners and retreating in the face of the Taliban will make America safer.

Mr. President, on one final matter, $865,000 dollars-- $865,000. That is roughly the cost of every new job the White House claims their so-called American Jobs Plan would create, $865,000.

This is how the math shakes out if you use the most favorable estimates that the Biden administration itself prefers. Figures reported by Bloomberg News come out to about $865,000 per job. Other analyses have found numbers actually north of $860,000.

Here is where the number comes from. The White House has tried to claim their spending plan would create 19 million jobs over the next decade. That is completely false. The Washington Post Fact Checker gave Democrats multiple Pinocchios for this false claim.

Nineteen million jobs is one estimate of the total number of jobs the entire country would add over the next decade, from all sources--all sources. The same estimate says we are on track to add more than 16 million of those same jobs without the bill.

So this proposal to tax, borrow, and spend $2.25 trillion would only create 2.6 million new jobs. And remember, these are the rosiest-- rosiest--best-case estimates that the White House itself has been pushing.

Now, I know a whole lot of Kentucky entrepreneurs and business owners who create more than one job if we gave them $865,000 to invest and expand.

Mr. President, I am sure you represent a lot of smart people who could turn an $865,000 investment into more than just one job.

The awful arithmetic just underscores how disappointing the proposal is. When the American people think of infrastructure, they think of honest-to-goodness public works projects that truly invest in the public good--things that build our Nation's backbone. And when Congress tackles real, tangible infrastructure issues in a smart fashion, there is big, broad bipartisan support.

The 2015 highway bill, the FAST Act, was a huge bipartisan lift that Senator Inhofe and former Senator Boxer hammered out together. I was proud to play a major role in that accomplishment myself. It was the first full 5-year highway bill that Congress had passed in 20 years. And it won 83 votes in the Senate and about the same percentage over in the House.

Even more recently, in 2018, the Senate passed America's Water Infrastructure Act, 99 to 1--the new investments in water infrastructure across the country to create jobs, grow the economy, and ensure that American families get the safe drinking water they deserve, 99 to 1.

Just last year, another water infrastructure package came out of the EPW Committee unanimously and cleared the Senate in a package that passed 92 to 6.

So there is bipartisan appetite for smart infrastructure bills that are built the right way. The Senate has proven that over and over again. There isn't much appetite for using the word ``infrastructure'' to justify a colossal--colossal--multitrillion-dollar slush fund for unrelated bad ideas.

A Harvard economist and infrastructure expert says, and listen to this, ``It does a bit of violence to the English language'' to call this an infrastructure proposal. That is a Harvard economist.

An expert at Columbia says big chunks of the proposal are ``really social spending, not productivity-enhancing infrastructure of any kind.''

One political analyst wrote:

[T]he plan . . . reads like a liberal wish list for

everything the left has wanted.

Less than 6--6 percent of the proposal goes to roads and bridges, less than 6 percent. It would send more money to just electric cars than it would spend on our Nation's roads, bridges, ports, airports, and waterways combined.

And while this proposal chases every green fad, it would also slam our economy with the largest tax hikes in a generation.

Experts at the Wharton School of Business have projected the plan would decrease GDP, decrease capital stock, and reduce workers' hourly wages 10, 20, and 30 years down the road.

Economists at Rice University recently looked at a similar package of Democratic tax hikes and found it would lead to a loss of a million jobs here in our country over just 2 years. Exactly when American workers are counting on an economic recovery, Democrats want to slap the economy with a massive set of tax increases.

So look, this noninfrastructure ``infrastructure'' plan is cut from the same cloth as the Democrats' nonvoting rights ``voting rights'' bill.

Both these subjects are ripe for bipartisan work. Both are subjects the Senate has addressed in the past with thoughtful compromises that have earned broad support. And both are issues where the American people will reject a far-left approach that makes their lives worse.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.