John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. And we don't have any plans of stopping there. We are also making serious strides in energy innovation. A couple of years ago, I visited the NET Power plant in La Porte, TX, right outside of Houston. NET Power is significant because it has developed a first-of-its-kind power system that generates affordable zero-emissions electricity. Using their unique carbon capture technology, they have taken natural gas, one of the most prevalent and affordable energy sources, and made it emission-free. That is what innovation can produce: emission-free electricity from natural gas. As impressive as this project is, though, it is made even better by the fact that it is not unique. Private companies are harnessing the power of human ingenuity to make our most used energy sources emission- free. Earlier this year, for example, ExxonMobil announced a $100 billion carbon capture and storage project in the Houston area, otherwise known as the energy capital of the world. This would create a carbon capture innovation zone to significantly reduce carbon emissions. ExxonMobil estimates this project has the potential to store up to 100 million metric tons of carbon per year by the year 2040. A decade later, Houston could be carbon-neutral. These kind of developments, I think, are incredibly exciting, and they showcase, once again, the power of innovation not by the government but by the private sector. If we are able to reduce emissions without harming our energy security, raising taxes, killing high-paying jobs, or driving up costs to consumers on a fixed income, why wouldn't we? Breakneck changes in technology have fueled our economy, propelled the communications sector, and completely transformed our daily lives. It is time to harness American ingenuity to revolutionize the energy sector. Smart policies can't prioritize only conservation, productivity, or economic power. We need to strike a balance of all three. You are simply not going to achieve the balance by imposing heavy-handed regulations or making it more expensive. Unfortunately, that seems to be exactly the path our Democratic colleagues in the Finance Committee want to take. Over the last couple of years, we have seen no shortage of unrealistic and downright harmful policies that are advocated for in the name of reducing carbon emissions. Some of our colleagues have proposed everything from the socialist paradise that is the Green New Deal to a more targeted but no more realistic net zero emissions bill. Tomorrow, as I suggested, the Finance Committee will mark up the latest proposal, legislation introduced by Chairman Wyden known by the innocuous name of the Clean Energy for America Act. But the bill is anything but innocuous. The bill proposes a complete overhaul of the energy tax code to finance the full gamut of clean energy policies. At its core, though, it is an anti-fossil fuel bill. Given the fact that more than 60 percent of our electricity is generated by fossil fuels, that strikes me as a pretty radical position to take. This proposal uses a variety of tax increases to place a squeeze on fossil fuel producers and to push America toward renewables, which accounted for no less than 20 percent of our energy production last year. In other words, they want to push us into the renewable space that only accounted for 20 percent of our energy production-- completely unrealistic This proposal would drive up costs for American energy producers and consumers, who would be the ones ultimately footing the bill. Namely, senior citizens and those on fixed incomes would be the ones hurt the most. I also have serious concerns about how this dramatic shift would impact our energy security. The higher cost of domestic oil would, once again, make the United States rely on countries like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela for our energy needs, and obviously we can all see the dangers that would produce. Our friend John McCain aptly described Russia at one time as ``a gas station masquerading as a country.'' Well, that was pretty funny, but it is also pretty accurate. Having the United States and our other allies over a barrel because of lack of energy diversification and domestic production gives them a lot of power--and too much power. We know what it has been like for recent decades before we became more self-sufficient when it came to energy production. I remember, back in 1980, Jimmy Carter famously issued the Carter doctrine after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He suggested that if anyone, any country, any adversary of the United States were to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, it would be an act of war because the oil that flowed through the Strait of Hormuz was essential for our national security and our economy. So why in the world would we want to return to those bad old days when we were dependent on imported energy? Well, this issue was further underscored in 2009, when Russia effectively turned off the gas in Ukraine for almost 3 weeks. This affected at least 10 countries in Europe whose natural gas flowed through that pipeline in Ukraine. If these tax hikes slowly strangle U.S. energy companies, we could end up in the same position: dependent on others for our basic energy needs. After years of building our energy independence and strengthening our energy security, now is not the time to turn back the clock. We simply should not put ourselves in a position where we are reliant on any other country, let alone our adversaries, to keep our lights on and to keep our economy humming. And the consequences don't stop there. Beyond harming our energy security, the legislation that the Finance Committee will consider tomorrow would kill countless high-paying jobs. It would weaken our global competitiveness and reverse the economic gains we have made because of a thriving oil and gas industry. And that is just scratching the surface of this misguided bill. One of the most outrageous provisions, though, is the electric vehicle tax credit proposal. We all know that out of the 280 million cars on the road in America, the vast majority of Americans drive cars that run on gas or diesel. When they fill up their tank at the gas station, they pay a user fee, or a tax, on every gallon they buy. Some of that money goes into the highway trust fund, the pot of money that pays to build and repair the roads and bridges we drive on every day. As we all know, though, the highway trust fund is in dire straits. Unless something changes, the shortfall over the next decade is expected to be nearly $200 billion. Those who drive electric cars don't buy gasoline, obviously. They don't contribute to the highway trust fund. They don't pay anything to drive on the roads and bridges every other American has to pay for and ultimately subsidizes. The proposal by the chairman of the Finance Committee doubles down on this problem and makes Americans do even more to subsidize the pricey electric vehicles owned by wealthy consumers. This legislation extends electric vehicle incentives, which will come at the cost of other taxpayers, without addressing the fact that electric vehicles are already driving on taxpayer-funded roads virtually free of charge. This is incredibly expensive and benefits only a limited group of wealthy Americans. Let's compare the cost of this program to the carbon capture projects I mentioned. Current electric vehicle subsidies equate to spending about $455 for every ton of CO2 that is reduced. As a reminder, this applies only to emission reduction for cars. Electric vehicle subsidies have zero bearing on the carbon emission of the manufacturing sector, power generation, or other emission-intensive industries. Carbon capture and storage, like the ExxonMobil project I mentioned earlier, can apply to virtually every source of emissions and at a much lower cost. CO2 can be abated for $100 to $200 per ton. That is less than half the price of an electric vehicle subsidy. I support efforts to reduce carbon emissions to preserve our air, land, and water for future generations, but those efforts don't have to come at this sort of exorbitant price. You can support all energy sectors and innovation and conservation. These are not mutually exclusive. One great example is a bill I introduced called the LEADING Act, which was signed into law last year. This legislation incentivizes the research and development of carbon capture technology for natural gas and innovation in the energy industry at large. That is how we can keep costs down for taxpayers and maintain this revolution in the energy sector. So I will continue to push back on efforts to weaken our energy independence and harm our economy in pursuit of arbitrary goals. There is simply no reason to stick taxpayers with the bill for these unnecessary policies when there are better commonsense ways to promote both innovation and conservation.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, a few hours ago, I had the pleasure of joining Secretary Raimondo and Senator Warner of Virginia for a tour of the Micron Technologies manufacturing plant just outside Washington, DC, in Manassas, VA. This is one of the great companies with facilities that produce semiconductors on U.S. soil. Secretary Raimondo, Senator Warner, and I were given a behind-the- scenes tour of how these advanced chips, or semiconductors, are made, and we discussed some of the reasons why it is more expensive to build these facilities in the United States. The average American uses countless products every day that could not function without semiconductors. For everything from cell phones, to televisions, to cars and dishwashers, chips underpin our most-used technology. As we become more technology dependent, it is going to get nothing but more important. But it is not just consumer products; cell towers, water treatment plants, agricultural equipment, our energy grid--semiconductors make all of that possible. These tiny technologies also play a huge role in our national defense. When we send our troops on a mission by land, sea, air, or even in cyber space, they need the best equipment available. Now more than ever, the equipment can't function without these chips. Just look at Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system. This highly sophisticated system of rocket interceptors is a great example of the role that chips play in national security--not only ours but of our allies' as well. We know that the number of civilian casualties that would be caused if not for the protection of the Iron Dome for the Israeli people would be significantly higher. I asked my staff to find out how many semiconductors are actually in one of those interceptors that knock out one of those rockets coming from Hamas. What I found out is that every single one of these interceptors contains more than 750 different semiconductors. So it is not hyperbole to say that there are life-and-death consequences to a reliable semiconductor supply chain, but right now, we are in a seriously vulnerable situation. Over the last two decades, the United States has gone from producing roughly a quarter of the world's semiconductors to about 12 percent. At the same time, China, our rival, our competitor that we are talking about a lot this week and last, has gone from manufacturing zero chips to now 16 percent of the world's supply, and it plans to invest another $1.4 trillion in semiconductor technologies. Right now, China is building 17 fabs, or manufacturing facilities, in China. We are maybe thinking about building one, through Taiwan Semiconductor in Arizona, but it depends on our willingness and ability to support that domestic manufacturing whether or not they actually complete that currently planned manufacturing facility. But when we are looking to our adversaries to supply the technology to power our most critical devices and systems, it is a huge problem. The global shortage we are seeing right now is a glimpse of what things could look like and worse. The lack of supply has forced companies across the full range of impacted industries to scale back production or hit pause altogether. We have seen that particularly in the car manufacture business. This shortage has led to some serious consequences. If companies have to shut down production, which is happening right now, due to lack of supply of semiconductors, there are hard-working Americans who aren't able to earn a paycheck. This impact, as I have suggested, is now being felt by autoworkers across the country. But we have every expectation that in a few months things will get back to normal. Those production lines will start back up, workers will be back on the job, and life will carry on hopefully as normal. But the bigger question we need to ask is how would we fare if our supply chain to advance semiconductors was cut off entirely. Let's say it is another pandemic or a natural disaster or, heaven forbid, a military conflict in the South China Sea. Nearly 90 percent of the world's chips are made in Southeast Asia. If that supply was cut off for any reason, what would we do? The consequences wouldn't be limited to a few bells and whistles on new cars. It would impact our missile defense systems, the F-35--the fifth generation Joint Strike Fighter--advanced weapons systems, quantum computing, and the full range of equipment and technologies our national defense depends on. If we don't have the ability to provide our troops with the technology they need to be successful, what would we do? Well, the risks of carrying on business as usual are far too high for us to even contemplate that scenario. There is a clear need to invest in domestic semiconductor manufacturing and secure perhaps our most vulnerable supply chain. As we continue to debate the most effective ways to confront threats from China and bolster our national and economic security, there is no question that funding to shore up domestic semiconductor manufacturing is a must-do. Last year, Senator Warner, the senior Senator from Virginia, and I introduced the CHIPS for America Act, and it was adopted by an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act with broad bipartisan support on a vote of 96 to 4--a rare thing these days. That bill became law earlier this year, and now we have the important job of providing the funding for it, something I hope we can achieve through the legislation that is before the Senate today. During the committee consideration of the bill, an amendment was added that would apply the controversial prevailing wage language to this portion of the bill. Considering the current wages of U.S. semiconductor manufacturing companies, it really is a nonissue. But what is an issue is expansion of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage provisions, not for public works but to private companies. And I believe the inclusion of this provision includes some roadblocks on the way to passage of this final legislation. So last week I introduced the amendment to strike this unnecessary and divisive provision and to protect the broad bipartisan support this legislation has already received. A controversial provision that doesn't even enact any real change is hardly a reason to let the funding go down the drain, and it really is just an unnecessary distraction. We don't need any other speed bumps in our ability to pass this important bipartisan legislation. I hope our colleagues will continue to work with us in good faith to reach a compromise that will earn broad bipartisan support. Last year the CHIPS for America Act, as I said, passed with a vote of 96 to 4, and there is no reason why this critical funding that we will be voting on this week should be politicized now. Nomination of Chiquita Brooks-LaSure Finally, Madam President, on another matter, this evening the Senate will take up a procedural vote on the President's nominee for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. CMS, as we all know, plays a vital role in providing healthcare to our most vulnerable populations. More than 4 million Texans, including half of our children, depend on the stability of our State's Medicaid Program to provide healthcare for them and their families. And in States across the country, Medicare funding is vital to the health of our most vulnerable friends and neighbors for everything from an emergency room visit to mental healthcare. But that could soon change. The Biden administration has taken the unprecedented step of rescinding an agreement with my State and the previous administration to maintain the stability of our State's Medicaid Program. Under this agreement, Texas was set to receive approximately $11 billion a year over the next decade to provide healthcare for our underserved population. Low-income individuals and those in rural areas are especially reliant on this funding, as are those who need mental healthcare. Mental and behavioral health providers alone receive about $300 million a year. When asked for the reasoning behind this dangerous and frankly shocking move, rescinding a prior agreement extending our 1115 waiver, CMS said it was to correct their administrative error--their error. But two anonymous Federal healthcare officials, I believe, did something that is all too rare here in Washington: They actually said the truth. They explained the real reasoning to the Washington Post. They said it was done ``to push state officials toward accepting the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion.'' So, in effect, the administration is doing something that the Supreme Court of the United States said it cannot do, which is to hold a gun to the head of the States and force them to accept Medicaid expansion. So now what they couldn't do under the Supreme Court's decision, they are trying to do now by holding our healthcare hostage in order to force the expansion of Medicaid into our State. That is a choice left up to the Governor and our elected legislature, not one to be made by bureaucrats with the Department of Health and Human Services or CMS. While patients in Texas may be the first ones caught in this political game, I have no expectation that they will be the last. As a matter of fact, there are only four States that don't have approved or pending 1115 waivers, which is what we are talking about--four. There are only four that don't have those. So every other State beyond those four could be in the same situation my State is in, in the coming months. Whether it is Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Missouri, Idaho--the list of States that could be impacted by this life-and-death game of political chicken is a long one. Of course, this all comes at a time when our healthcare system is already in fragile condition after more than a year of battling COVID- 19. And the patients whose healthcare relies on the stability of the Medicaid system are those who have faced the biggest challenges during the pandemic. I have asked the Biden administration to work with the State to ensure that millions of impacted individuals won't lose access to healthcare, but so far there has been little or no progress. The administration has been unable to provide me any assurance that an agreement could be reached before the end of this fiscal year-- something that would have dire consequences on our providers and especially those in behavioral and mental health. To state the obvious, the nominee to lead CMS, Ms. Brooks-LaSure, did not personally rescind the Texas Medicaid waiver. As a matter of fact, she hasn't been confirmed yet; so she couldn't. But before her nomination could advance, Members of the Senate deserve a commitment from the administration that it won't try to force the hand of other States, including Texas, by putting the healthcare of millions of vulnerable citizens on the line. If we don't stand up now and push back on this reckless move, who will be next? Which State will be next? How far will the administration go to force States into enacting laws that they do not want to enact? CMS funding is vital to the healthcare of millions of my constituents and to the stability of our entire healthcare system. CMS cannot be used as the administration's strong arm to coerce States into accepting its political demands, which is all this is. I appreciate Ms. Brooks-LaSure's experience in working with States to develop these types of waivers and her willingness to meet with me on this issue, but frankly this is a decision being made above her in the food chain. But my State has not so far received an assurance that this action will be rectified, and it looks like the administration is intent on pulling the rug out from under our poorest and most needy patients. For that reason, I cannot support this nominee, and I urge my colleagues to stand with me and, in doing so, stand up for the healthcare of their most vulnerable constituents, too, and pushing the administration to find an alternate and satisfactory path forward. If the administration will take aim at the healthcare of 4 million vulnerable Texans, they will do it to anyone. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in my lifetime, China has gone from a poor and isolated country to now accounting for nearly 20 percent of global gross domestic product. There is no doubt that the ingenuity of the Chinese people has contributed to this success, but we know the driving force behind this dramatic rise is the aggressiveness of the Chinese Communist Party. Its aims can be summed up with four R's: resist, reduce, replace, and reorder. China resists American economic influence by manipulating American businesses and industries and stealing intellectual property. It reduces internal dissent and free expression of ideas through mass surveillance and censorship of its own people, and it seeks to exert its power and influence in the United States. The Chinese Communist Party intends to replace America as the world's technology leader through the Made in China 2025 initiative, which seeks to achieve Chinese dominance in high-tech manufacturing. Finally, it hopes to reorder international norms and institutions around itself. That is their vision. That is their strategy. That is their plan. Now, the Chinese Communist Party's ruling strategy can best be described as ``win at all costs.'' In other words, they do not play by the same rules we do. And make no mistake, these ambitions paint an alarming picture for the United States and our allies. Former Attorney General Bill Barr said last year: ``It is clear that the PRC,'' or People's Republic of China, ``seeks not merely to join the ranks of other advanced industrial economies, but to replace them altogether.'' In everything from electric cars to advanced robotics, to artificial intelligence, China aspires to lead global production and to dominate global production, and they are throwing serious money into the effort to get China there. China is expected to spend $1.4 trillion by 2025 covering investments in everything from 5G to artificial intelligence. This is not the time for the United States to be complacent, to sit back and watch the Chinese Communist Party pursue tech domination. By the time it has made significant progress, we would be too late. We need to take action now to ensure that our economy and our military can continue to outcompete China, and that is precisely what we can achieve through the Endless Frontier Act. As Leader McConnell said, a robust amendment process will be critical to this piece of legislation. As I was discussing with Senator Schumer this morning, for most Members, this 1,500-page substitute bill landed on their desks just a little bit earlier this week, so it is going to take a little time for us to understand and to digest the complexity and the ambitions, really, I should say, of this bill. In the coming days, I hope the Senate will vote on amendments from Members on both sides that will strengthen this legislation and ensure that it addresses the broad range of strategic threats we are facing. One of the most urgent priorities is to secure the supply chains of our most important products. We really learned that from the pandemic. When the COVID-19 virus hit, starting in China and then spreading around the world, we learned that China made most of the personal protective equipment in the world, and thus we were competing with China and other parts of the world to get access to the personal protective equipment that our first responders, our frontline healthcare workers, and others needed in order to be safe. That was one of the first signs that our supply chains may be vulnerable. But before any piece of technology becomes usable for its audience, it includes parts and pieces and materials that literally come from around the world. This was the theory of globalization: Go wherever this product can be produced the least expensively. But we didn't count on pandemics. We didn't count on natural disasters. We didn't count on the potential for military conflict to jeopardize the availability of these essential products. Regardless of where a product is finally assembled and packaged, each of those individual pieces is key to protecting the supply chains of our most valuable assets. Right now, supply chains for everything from cars and cell phones to missile defense, to communication systems are at risk because of one tiny piece of technology called a semiconductor or a microelectric chip. It goes by numerous names. I have shown a floor chart previously, and I will probably bring it out again sometime here before we are through, but the fact is, the United States relies heavily on other countries for these essential advanced semiconductors. Nearly 90 percent of those chips are made by companies in Southeast Asia, including Taiwan. As a matter of fact, Taiwan alone produces 63 percent of the world's advanced semiconductors, and we depend on that sole source for these most advanced microchips. One company, Taiwan Semiconductor, accounted for more than half of the total foundry revenues last year, and, as I said, companies in Taiwan control 63 percent of the market. If for any reason that supply chain was cut off, it would lead to very, very serious economic and security consequences across our entire economy. In recent months, we have gotten a glimpse of what this might look like, particularly when it comes to our car manufacturing capacity. At the beginning of the pandemic, automaker suppliers predicted a drop in car sales, and so they canceled their orders for semiconductor chips. Semiconductor manufacturers replaced the auto chip capacity with other in-demand products, like chips for personal computers that kept kids learning while they were at home or chips that went into ventilators to keep COVID-19 patients alive. But American consumers kept buying cars at prepandemic rates, and the carmakers needed to make up for the chip to meet that demand. Unfortunately, restoring the production of auto chips is not a quick or easy process. There is a long lead time, in fact, to manufacturing a single chip, which can take up to 6 months. Although chipmakers are filling auto chip orders, we are still likely to face a shortage that may last throughout the summer. In response, some automakers have removed certain technology and extra features, like GPS, from vehicles in order to reduce the number of chips they need. Others have cut production across the board and laid off some of their workforce. But as bad as that may sound, it could be much, much worse. The squeeze we are feeling now is more or less the result of a backlog, and we have every expectation that in a few months, things will return to normal. But what if, instead of a decrease in supply due to increased demand, the supply was cut off entirely? This is not some fictional doomsday scenario; it is a real possibility. Our dependence on other countries for these chips could leave us in a very vulnerable position if access were suddenly cut off or restricted. Unlike the supply chain shortages we experienced at the start of the pandemic for things like PPE, hand sanitizer, and the like, there is no quick fix here. In order to build a single chip, you need very expensive and highly advanced equipment. You need the skilled workforce. And, as I said before, you need quite a bit of time because it can take months to build a single chip, and that is assuming you have the facility and all the equipment ready to go. A couple of weeks ago, I met with executives in Dallas who represent a full range of businesses and industries impacted by the current chip shortage. An executive at Qorvo talked about how the process of building a new chip fabrication facility isn't just expensive; it is time-consuming. It can take years to receive all of the high- functioning equipment necessary to build advanced microchips. Building a foundry is a huge undertaking that requires a massive investment. A single foundry where these advanced semiconductors are built can cost upwards of $10 to $20 billion--$10 to $20 billion. Indeed, that is the reason why we are so reliant on Taiwan, because it is a low-cost provider. Again, we made the mistake of thinking that cost was the only thing that mattered, as opposed to dependability of our supply chain. So there is a clear need to bolster our domestic semiconductor manufacturing. The United States is not the only country that sees the handwriting on the wall. Other parts of the world, from South Korea to China itself, to the European Union, are investing billions of dollars in new manufacturing capacity. Right now, as I speak, there is one semiconductor foundry being planned for Arizona by Taiwan Semiconductor. China is building 17 while we are just getting started to build 1. As I said, the European Union is investing huge amounts of money, about $35 billion; South Korea is investing $65 billion; and China is investing a whopping $150 billion in semiconductor manufacturing. Other countries around the world recognize the risks to their economy and their national security given the current semiconductor manufacturing landscape. Our competitors are pouring tens of billions of dollars into boosting their supplies, and the United States needs to do likewise, which is why Senator Warner, the Senator from Virginia, and I introduced CHIPS for America Act last year. The premise of this legislation is straightforward: to create a Federal incentive program to encourage chip manufacturing here in the U.S. of A. Rather than rely on manufacturers in Taiwan or China or compete against other countries for the limited supply of chips worldwide, let's bolster the supply of American-made semiconductors. This way, we can secure our most critical supply chains, create thousands of well-paying American jobs, and boost our global competitiveness by supplying made-in-America chips to our friends and allies around the world. We weren't alone in thinking this is a good idea. In fact, when we considered the authorization for this CHIPS for America Act in the Defense authorization bill last December, it passed with a vote of 96 to 4. So it is clear that the entire Senate understands the gravity of this issue and its importance. That authorization became law in January, and now we have the job of fully funding these programs so they can actually get to work turning over dirt and getting these foundries off the ground. The strong support for this legislation on a bipartisan basis shows that this is a priority for a majority of the Members of this body. There is no reason these funding programs shouldn't be bipartisan too. We are already seeing divisions about provisions related to the payment of a prevailing wage, so-called Davis-Bacon provisions, which is, frankly, dividing us, which is a moot issue given the current wages of U.S. semiconductor manufacturing companies. It is a nonissue for them. Yet some of our Democratic colleagues decided to insert this divisive issue in this underlying Endless Frontier bill. We should not allow unnecessary or purely political provisions to weaken our strong support to our consensus commitment to deal with these vulnerable supply chains. I am committed to securing funding to bolster our domestic semiconductor manufacturing, and there have been a lot of conversations about the most effective way to do so. But let me be clear. The Davis-Bacon provisions inserted into the committee markup in the Endless Frontier bill is jeopardizing this funding. I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will work with us in good faith to come up with a compromise that allows this funding to pass with broad bipartisan support, just like the CHIPS for America Act. There is a clear and present need and, I might say, a clear and present danger to the United States. We need to bolster our domestic semiconductor manufacturing and secure one of our most vulnerable supply chains. As I said, this is a matter of both our economic and national security and something far too important to fall prey to partisan jockeying. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the situation in the Middle East is a stark contrast from that of just 9 months ago. Last summer, the United States helped broker the Abraham Accords--a historic step in the relationship between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. The UAE became the third Arab country--the first Gulf State-- to recognize and normalize relations with Israel. Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan would follow suit shortly thereafter. These agreements mark historic progress toward peace in decades and appear to open a new era of diplomacy in the Middle East. Today, though, the optimism we felt just a little less than a year ago has been replaced with more violence--more violence--and more destruction than we have seen in years and civilian casualties that continue to climb every day. Hamas has fired thousands of rockets into civilian populations in Israel. If not for the Iron Dome anti-rocket defense system and the U.S. support and funding that made it possible, the death toll would be significantly higher than it is. Just as any sovereign state under attack by terrorist forces would do, Israel has defended its citizens. Given the way Hamas uses Palestinian civilians as human shields--a war crime, by the way, for which Hamas alone is responsible--the counterstrikes have carried a human cost. As the conflict has intensified, some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have called into question Israel's right to defend itself. They have acted as though there is some moral equivalency between the terrorist acts of Hamas and Israel's right to defend itself. They have called on the President to speak out against the conduct of Israel but not Hamas. It is as though they think that Israel is somehow a terrorist group, not the other way around. As I said, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets specifically headed toward civilian targets in Israel. The moral equivalency argument between Hamas's attack and Israel's response is clearly divorced from any reality. Let's be clear, though. This conflict is not a welcome development for anyone. The Israeli and the Palestinian people are bearing the cost of a conflict that they had no hand in creating. It is important to remember that two things can be true. First, Israel has a right to defend itself. If Hamas or any other terrorist group or state launches an attack on Israel, its government has both the right and the responsibility to respond and protect its citizens. Secondly, the number of civilian casualties on both sides, particularly the number of children, is heartbreaking. Both of those things are true. The violence and destruction we are seeing is devastating, made even more upsetting by the progress we appeared to have made just last year. But this is not a conflict between two governments; this is a sovereign state defending itself against a terrorist attack. I am afraid that message has been lost on President Biden. When asked about the conflict earlier this week, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the administration is using ``quiet and intensive diplomacy''--``quiet and intensive diplomacy'' while the rockets are raining down on civilian populations in Israel. The only democracy in the Middle East is being attacked by a terrorist organization, and the diplomatic strategy of the leader of the free world includes remaining quiet. I am reminded of President Obama's statement--bizarre now, in retrospect--talking about ``leading from behind,'' an oxymoronic doctrine which gave way to disastrous, albeit predictable, consequences in Libya. We continued to see the dire cost of poor American leadership in other foreign countries. In Yemen, in Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine, leading from behind has done nothing but harm the cause of peace. I hope this serves as a wake-up call for President Biden of the dangers of a similar quest. ``Quiet and intensive diplomacy'' is not the appropriate course when one of our closest allies in the world is being attacked by an internationally recognized terrorist organization. But we can't lose sight of the country behind the curtain, the silent financier of this conflict, which is Iran, the No. 1 state sponsor of international terrorism, because this is, in fact, a proxy war waged against the Jewish State. Iran is a prolific state sponsor of terrorism and has felt growing pressure from the United States and its allies in recent years. The Trump administration withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and placed sanctions on hundreds of businesses and individuals who have helped finance Iran's illicit activities. And there is no question that Iran stood to lose the most from the peace agreements brokered last year. The threat of Iran was largely responsible for these countries to come together and to lay down their arms and to work together. The Biden administration has made clear it intends to recklessly revive the Iran deal, while loosening the sanctions that would provide the United States leverage to negotiate better terms. These important sanctions target Iran's support for terrorist groups like Hamas, as well as its ballistic missile development and human rights violations. Removing them now, essentially unilaterally, is a grave mistake. Simply by signaling this intent, President Biden has already emboldened and encouraged Iran's malign activities through its proxies--Hamas, Hezbollah, and others. This current loss of life and destruction demonstrate that Iran is capable of wielding deadly force, even with lean resources. Fewer sanctions, though, have meant less cash flowing to their terrorist proxies. This week, we are reminded of the saying that has been around for years: ``If Hamas laid down its weapons today, there would be no more violence. If Israel laid down its weapons, there would be no more Israel.'' America must remain steadfast in our commitment to support Israel, as well as our responsibility to counter threats posed by terrorist organizations like Hamas and malign nation state actors like Iran. I hope for a day in the future when the Middle East can be a place of peace, stability, and democracy, but we simply will not reach that point without a strong and secure Israel. I stand in full support of Israel and will continue to fight for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. The United States does not bow down to terrorist organizations, and we will not allow our allies to be bullied and beaten by Hamas or any other terrorist group. (Mr. OSSOFF assumed the Chair.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, one of the topics of discussion right now here in Washington, DC--actually, there are many different topics of discussion, but one of those is infrastructure. Depending on who you ask, you are likely to get different answers on what exactly people mean when they say the word ``infrastructure.'' When I and my constituents in Texas think about infrastructure, we think about our highways and bridges. Now, those are two of the big things that come to mind. We are home to the largest network of highways in the Nation, as well as the largest number of bridges, and these structures are supporting more and more Texans by the day. It is no secret that, in the last decade, Texas has grown by nearly 4 million people--roughly the population of our neighbor to the north, Oklahoma. If we want to get all 29 million Texans and our visitors and our crucial commercial cargo around the State safely and efficiently, we need a reliable network of transportation infrastructure, and there is a lot of room for improvement over the status quo. Every year, the American Society of Civil Engineers evaluates America's infrastructure and issues a report card that lets us know how we are doing. Well, America is barely passing with a C-minus. Texas is faring only slightly better than the rest of the class with a C. There is no doubt about it--it is time for an investment in our infrastructure. Now more than ever, that investment must be made responsibly. We just spent trillions of dollars to help the American people and our economy get through a pandemic, and our national debt is at its highest level since World War II. I have told my friends back home that this is the domestic equivalent to a world war. We didn't ask in World War II: How much money can we spend? We needed to defeat our enemies, and we did. Then we needed to come together responsibly and figure out how to pay for it. We don't need to quit spending altogether, but we surely must take a closer look at what is necessary and what is desirable and what is something we would like to have but that could be put off for another day. Think of the Goldilocks principle: not too hot, not too cold. In this case: not too small, not too big. We need to find the right size, and we need to agree on what that means. The most recent highway and transit funding bill that became law was the FAST Act of 2015. That bill came in right around $300 billion. Last Congress, before the pandemic hit, it looked like we were poised to pass a similar bill at roughly the same pricetag. I think we can all agree that, now, something of that size is probably too small. We need to invest in our infrastructure--repair our roads, our bridges, our airports, our levees, and other transportation infrastructure that is long overdue. The pandemic has highlighted the need to expand that definition, though; for example, to strengthen broadband and internet access. For many Americans, the daily commutes to work or to school have been replaced by virtual classrooms and telework. Our 21st-century economy and society depend on internet connections, and we need to do more to improve access, especially in rural areas, where the big internet companies don't find it commercially advantageous to offer service. Republicans and Democrats agree that, this time around, we need a larger investment in our Nation's infrastructure, but, frankly, the proposal from President Biden is far too big. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates it would cost an additional $2.65 trillion--roughly nine times the recent highway bill that became law--and that is on top of the $1.9 trillion that the Senate majority and the House and the President just passed into law purportedly for additional COVID-19 relief, although only about 10 percent of it actually addressed COVID-19. The point is, we have been spending a lot of money, and we can't keep spending money that we are borrowing from future generations. Not surprisingly, only a fraction of the President's infrastructure bill is dedicated to roads and bridges--5 percent, in fact. The vast majority of the funding goes toward a long list of programs and policies that are unrelated to infrastructure--for example, caregiving for the elderly and disabled; community colleges; programs to improve diversity in STEM careers. All of those are important topics, but they are not infrastructure, and we shouldn't be paying for them by borrowing money from future generations. We ought to figure out appropriate offsets and pay-fors like we used to do here before the pandemic hit. Our job is to find the right-sized bill that suits our needs without going overboard with unnecessary and unrelated spending. Fortunately, Mrs. Capito, the Senator from West Virginia, is leading the way to find that Goldilocks just-right fit. She and a number of our colleagues have outlined to President Biden and our Democratic colleagues a framework to improve our Nation's infrastructure. The plan they have proposed comes in at $568 billion--more than we have spent in the past but far less than the President's proposal. When we talk about the need for bipartisan compromise, this is a great place to start. The Republican plan includes nearly $300 billion for roads and bridges--2\1/2\ times the President's plan for roads and bridges. It also invests in airports, drinking and waste water, ports and waterways, broadband, and some of the most urgent infrastructure priorities in our country. Last week, Senator Capito and five of our Republican colleagues met with Vice President Harris and President Biden to discuss a path forward. They, apparently, had a productive meeting, and the President seemed to be receptive to many of the ideas that were shared. I hope this is the starting point for a consensus package that addresses our infrastructure needs There is a question that almost nobody wants to talk about, but thanks to Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho, we actually had a virtual hearing on this this morning in the Senate Finance Committee to answer the taboo question that nobody really wants to talk about, which is, How do we pay for it? As I said, this was the subject of the Senate Finance Committee hearing this morning, and I am sure some of the ideas that were put forward will begin to start to take traction and, hopefully, lead us to a way to responsibly pay for this infrastructure bill. In the past, funding for infrastructure bills has come from the highway trust fund, but for years, it has faced severe shortfalls. To a serious degree, my constituents in Texas have footed the bill for those shortfalls. We are one of the few States, for example, that receives less than it contributes to the highway trust fund. In other words, we are a donor State. For every dollar we put into the highway trust fund, we get 95 cents back. Well, that is not the same treatment every State is getting. In fact, we have a lower rate of return than every other State. If we want to have any long-term success in maintaining our roads and bridges, we have to bring this formula up to date, and it has to be equitable. The smart spending, though, can't stop there. We need to repurpose the mountain of unused Federal funds from the so-called COVID-19 relief bill. States are awash with cash that they, frankly, don't know how to spend. The massive $1.9 trillion bill became law without the support of a single Republican because it was so extravagant and poorly targeted. Case in point: the blue State bailout. This legislation sent 350 billion additional dollars to State and local governments, many of which were not facing any budgetary shortfalls. We have started to see a flurry of news stories in the past few weeks that have demonstrated exactly why we were opposed to this reckless spending. For example, California has reported a $75 billion budget surplus--a massive amount of money. Governor Newsom says this will be used to pay down past State debts, send direct checks to Californians, and add to its rainy day fund. In addition to California, you have New York, Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota. Each of these States is expected to have more than a $1 billion surplus--again, because of the massive shuffling of cash out of Washington, DC, into the States that was not targeted to COVID-19 relief. This is exactly why we advocated against this tidal wave of funding for States that were not even operating in the red. Taxpayer dollars shouldn't be spent to erase the debts of mismanaged States or to add to their rainy day funds. They have the ability to raise revenue themselves, so it shouldn't be the responsibility of the Federal taxpayers to bail them out or to provide them with this huge cash cushion with their looking to try to find responsible ways to spend it. Tens of billions of unused dollars from this legislation should be repurposed to help cover the costs of these investments without driving our national debt even higher. It is common sense, and I actually believe that there is a way to incentivize the States to use that additional cash for infrastructure purposes, whether it is through modifications and cost sharing between State and local governments. Many of those States are struggling to find a way, within the guidelines and guardrails that we have provided for COVID-19 relief, to spend it anyway, so why not spend it for infrastructure? Maybe there is a win-win there. There are a number of ideas now on the table about how to pay for this infrastructure bill, but I hope we can all agree that the massive tax hike that President Biden is proposing is not the answer. This would constitute the largest set of tax hikes in more than half a century, and these increases would do serious damage to our economy just as we are coming out of a pandemic-induced recession. At a time when our economy is already on fragile footing, the tax burden on Americans would be greater than that of our biggest trading partners and competitors, and this would have far-reaching consequences for our competitiveness and our economy as a whole. After all, we know these tax hikes won't be reflected in lower earnings for CEOs. The brunt will be borne by consumers, who will pay higher prices, and by workers, who will earn lower wages, and let's not forget those whose jobs have disappeared entirely. We are already seeing some price hikes on some of our most used consumer products, covering everything from cereal, to diapers, to lumber, and to cars. This is not the time to increase taxes and drive inflation across our economy, which is, actually, a tax increase on low- and middle-income people. We need to find responsible ways to fund an investment in our infrastructure without hurting our economy and the people we represent. Right now, it appears that bipartisan progress is being made toward that just-right-sized policy and for it to be paid for in a responsible way or, at least, that is my optimistic hope. So I want to thank Senator Capito for her leadership on this effort and all those who have been working with our Democratic colleagues and the administration and encourage them to continue to work with folks on our side of the aisle so we can get this done on a timely basis. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this week America celebrates National Police Week. It is a time for us to stop and pay tribute to those who died in the line of duty defending our communities and to thank those who continue to serve our communities. Law enforcement is a calling answered by a select few. These men and women have chosen a difficult and often dangerous life dedicated to keeping our communities safe, defending our civil liberties, and protecting our neighborhoods. These jobs, obviously, require tremendous courage and sacrifice, not just from the officers themselves but their families too, and I am grateful to those who selflessly serve our communities every day. Under normal circumstances, the events of this week bring tens of thousands of uniformed officers to Washington, DC, from across the country. Through laying wreaths, candlelight vigils, and church services, they ordinarily gather in remembrance of their fallen brothers and sisters in person. In previous years, I have had the pleasure of welcoming a number of Texas officers and their families who have traveled to Washington, DC, for this National Police Week observation, but as in so many other ways, this year is not like previous ones. Over the last year, our country has faced unprecedented heartbreak and turmoil, which have made a career in law enforcement even more challenging. First came the pandemic. While millions of Americans hunkered down in their homes to slow the spread of the virus, law enforcement personnel continued to lace up their boots and go to work every day. With the spread of COVID-19 and the lack of proper personal protective equipment in the early stages of the pandemic, even simple interactions with members of the community carried risks. At the same time, the stresses of the pandemic led to a surge of drug overdose deaths and an increase in family violence. And across the country, we saw a dramatic increase in the number of homicides. When a deadly winter storm hit Texas in February, police officers took on even more responsibility. They worked around the clock to help folks without power or water, often while worrying about the safety of their own families. For all the ways the last year has taught us to appreciate the unique role that law enforcement officers play in our communities, it has also put these men and women at the center of a tough, but necessary, national conversation about racial justice. The killing of George Floyd shone a spotlight on issues in our justice system that absolutely must be rooted out and led to a national conversation about the need to do so. There is no question we need to take action to improve transparency and accountability within our police forces. We need to strengthen the relationship between police and the communities they serve. I believe everybody can agree on those points. But as a country, we need to remember that the actions of a few do not define the masses, the rest of us. The vast majority of police officers are honorable, dedicated public servants who go above and beyond the call of duty to keep us safe and are committed to improving accountability and trust in police. There is a saying that nobody hates a bad cop worse than a good cop. Last summer, police officers in Dallas hosted a rally to show their support for the efforts to stop police brutality and racial injustice. We need to remember that, except for these occasional outliers, we are all on the same team, fighting for a justice system that keeps our communities safe and treats every person with dignity and respect. For some, this movement has led to radical calls to defund or even abolish the police--two very dangerous ideas. Over the last year, we have seen an increase in violent crime in our country. Last year, major cities experienced a 33-percent increase in homicides--33 percent. The early data shows that things aren't getting any better this year. In fact, in too many places, things are getting worse. This simply isn't the time, if there ever were a time, to strip local police departments of funding; rather, it is time to provide them with the resources and the policies they need to safely and justly protect our communities. I know we are having a lot of discussions across the aisle on the most effective way to do that, and I hope that this year, unlike last year, we will be able to make progress. A job in law enforcement, as I suggested, is never easy. These men and women put on the uniform and leave their families, never knowing what the day ahead may entail. In the back of their minds, they have a question--whether this is the last time they will ever see their loved ones. Stopping a violent crime, helping a neighbor in crisis--you never know what a police encounter could bring. Four months ago, Capitol Police officers certainly didn't anticipate what their jobs would require on January 6. This building was stormed by a violent mob who tried to threaten the very foundations of our democracy. That day, as we know, this building was filled with Members of Congress, our staff, journalists, and countless men and women whom we count on to keep Congress running every day. Fortunately, that also includes the brave men and women of the Capitol Police Force. While protecting the people inside this building, Capitol Police officers were assaulted, threatened, and subjected to the violence of the mob for hours on end. In the wake of this tragedy, the Capitol Police lost two of their colleagues, Officer Brian Sicknick and Officer Howard Liebengood. Last month, Capitol Police Officer Billy Evans was killed while protecting this institution. I am grateful for the sacrifices law enforcement officers make every single day. This week, we honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice. One of the most emblematic remembrances of that sacrifice is the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, which sits along the National Mall here in Washington, DC. It is a beautiful tribute to the Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty and features marble walls filled with more than 21,000 names. Each of these names represents a hero, and, sadly, this year we added the names of 55 Texans who were killed in the line of duty last year. These officers gave their all in service to our communities and to our country. Of course, there is nothing we can do to adequately thank these heroes and their families for their sacrifice, but we can take action to protect their brothers and sisters in blue. In recent years, we have seen brutal, inexcusable attacks on police officers around the country, including one in Dallas that completely rocked our entire State. In 2016, a man killed five officers and injured nine others. It was a sobering reminder of the dangers these officers face every day and a call for us to take action to do more to support them. Yesterday, I reintroduced the Back the Blue Act to make clear our support for the public servants who dedicated their lives to protecting our communities. This legislation sends a strong message to more than 800,000 law enforcement officers in our country that they are supported and that violence against them will not be tolerated. The Back the Blue Act adds stiff, mandatory penalties, and it makes it a Federal crime to kill or attempt to kill a law enforcement officer, a Federal judge, or a federally funded public safety officer. It also makes it a Federal crime to assault a law enforcement officer. These men and women put themselves in harm's way every day, and we must make it clear that violence against them will never be tolerated. Right now, there is a serious need to improve the relationships between law enforcement and the communities they serve, and this legislation will help there too. It will allow grant funds to be used for efforts to help foster more trust between police and the communities they protect. In light of the national conversation over the past year regarding the need to improve these relationships, this could not be more important. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation and show law enforcement across the country that we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them. I was also pleased this morning when a bill that I am leading with my colleague Senator Coons called the Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila Federal Officer and Employee Protection Act passed out of the Judiciary Committee. That bill came in response to an appellate court decision that reversed the convictions of cartel members who murdered a Federal agent and attempted to murder another one while those agents were fighting the cartels in Mexico. An appeals court held that the United States did not have jurisdiction to try the cartel members for the murder and attempted murder. This bill closes that loophole and states unequivocally that we can and will try and convict those who murder our law enforcement officers, even those serving outside the United States. I am grateful for the law enforcement officers who courageously and honorably serve our communities every day. This week, we honor them and the generations of officers who came before them. In particular, we pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, more than 4 million Texans, including half of the children in my State, depend on the stability of the State's Medicaid Program to provide healthcare for themselves and their families. Everything from emergency room visits to mental health care, Medicaid funding is vital to the health of our most vulnerable friends and neighbors. The same is true in virtually every State across the country. Unfortunately, a recent move by the Biden administration has put the healthcare of these vulnerable citizens in jeopardy. A few weeks ago, the Biden administration rescinded approval of Texas's 1115 waiver extension. I know that is an obscure reference to most folks, but, basically, here is the long and short of it. The previous administration reached an agreement with the State that will enable billions of dollars to flow to Texans in need. Now, for some reason, the Biden administration is trying to stop it. The real question is, Why? Why would the Biden administration try to jeopardize the healthcare for 4 million Texans, while the President has consistently talked about ensuring every American has access to quality healthcare. Just 2 weeks ago in his joint session to Congress, he said: Healthcare should be a right, not a privilege in America. So why would the administration take an unprecedented action to reduce access to healthcare for some of the most vulnerable people in my State? Well, the official answer from CMS is to correct an administrative error. But two Federal health officials did an unusual thing in Washington, DC, albeit anonymously. They told the truth. They told the Washington Post that this was done to ``push State officials toward accepting the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion.'' It is pretty bold to admit that this was not about an administrative error at all but about forcing Medicaid expansion onto the State of Texas. Many people will recall that this was a portion of the Affordable Care Act which was held unconstitutional in an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts. Chief Justice Roberts said that the Federal Government cannot put a gun to the head of the State and force it to accept the Medicaid expansion since it is a joint program between the Federal Government and the State. Now the administration is engaged in a game of political chicken, with 4 million Texans on the line, and the only ones who are getting hurt are the low-income and uninsured Texans whose healthcare relies on this safety net. This move by the administration would have been damaging during normal times, but it is even more damaging after this unprecedented year for our healthcare providers. In fact, it is downright reckless. Hospitals and providers in Texas have been pushed to the brink during the pandemic. On top of the additional expenses associated with COVID- 19, they have faced serious financial shortfalls from the pause on nonessential medical procedures as well as the hesitancy of patients to seek care because they have been worried about contracting the virus. Now, more than ever, hospitals and healthcare providers need reliable funding to plan ahead for their financial stability and uncompensated healthcare costs. If this funding stream goes away or is disrupted, it will directly threaten the healthcare for uninsured Texans and harm the livelihoods of healthcare providers as a whole. In rural areas and those that are already underserved, the consequences of this move could not be more dangerous. Let's say the Biden administration refuses to change course and Texas loses billions of dollars in Medicaid funding. If uninsured patients in small towns go only to local hospitals for emergency care, they will receive that emergency care because that is another Federal law, called EMTALA. But without the Federal funding to offset those costs, how would these hospitals make ends meet? If these patients aren't paying out of their pockets and the Federal Government is not helping to cover the costs, what will happen? It is pretty simple, actually. Without funding, the rural hospital will close. So those same uninsured patients will start visiting the second closest hospital. In my State--it is a big State--that is, maybe, 30 minutes down the road. Maybe it is more than an hour away. Once again, without Federal funding to help cover the costs of treating rising numbers of uninsured patients, what will happen? Well, that hospital will close too. We will descend into a death spiral of hospitals and healthcare providers that close their doors because they can no longer afford to provide healthcare. The hardest hit patients won't be those with private health insurance; they will be those low-income and uninsured patients, especially in rural and underserved areas. So the consequences of this irresponsible move by the Biden administration could not be more serious, and they will be felt far and wide because this funding is vital to our healthcare system as a whole. It is not hyperbole to say that these are going to have life-and- death consequences. While patients in Texas may be the first to get caught in the game of political chicken, they will not be the last. There are only four States that don't have approved or pending 1115 waivers. Four--only four--don't have approved or pending 1115 waivers. Every other State could find itself in the same situation as my State in the coming months. Florida was granted a waiver around the same time as Texas. What will happen to vulnerable Floridians? Tennessee is already facing legal challenges to its waiver. Will its providers be in jeopardy too? North Carolina, South Carolina, Missouri, Idaho--the list of States that could be impacted by this life-or-death game of chicken goes on and on. The most vulnerable patients in States across the country could lose access to healthcare because of the Biden administration's irresponsible and reckless actions. Something must be done. To state the obvious, the nominee to lead the CMS, Ms. Brooks-LaSure, did not rescind the Texas Medicaid waiver approval. In fact, she has not been confirmed as yet, but before her nomination can advance, Members of the Senate deserve a commitment from the administration that it won't try to force the hand of States by putting the healthcare of millions on the line. If we don't step up now and push back against this reckless move, what State will be next? How far will the administration go--in the words of Chief Justice Roberts--to put a gun to the heads of the States, forcing them to dance to Washington's tune? I have asked the administration to work with Texas to ensure that millions of impacted individuals won't lose access to healthcare, but, so far, there has been zero progress. The administration has been unwilling to provide any assurance that an agreement with Texas could be reached before the end of this fiscal year--something that would have dire consequences for our providers, especially those in mental and behavioral health. As a reminder, the CMS said the only issue with the Texas waiver was an administrative error. Now it won't even commit to providing reliable care for these patients. This unprecedented action by the CMS threatens the security of the Texas Medicaid Program. It disrespects the continuity of this agreement, and it erodes the partnership between the State and the Federal Government. I think it also violates the constitutional authority of the States. The Federal Government is one of delegated powers, with the rest retained by the States and we the people. That was the basis upon which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the compulsory Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. Yet now the administration seeks to do through the backdoor what it could not do through the front door. This sets a dangerous precedent of the administration's undoing of agreements, negotiated in good faith between the States and the Federal Government, for purely political reasons, and it could have cascading consequences across the country. I appreciate Ms. Brooks-LaSure's experience in working with States to develop these waivers as well as her willingness to talk to me about this issue, but she doesn't have any authority to force the Biden administration to undo its terrible and reckless mistake, at least not yet. Until Texas can receive a waiver and an assurance that this action will be rectified and the rug will not be pulled out from under our poorest patients, I cannot support this nomination. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the healthcare of their most vulnerable populations and push the administration to find an alternate path forward. If they are willing to do this to my State, they will do it to your State and every other State in the country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent to be able to complete my remarks before the vote occurs.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, listening to my friend, the Democratic whip, reminds me that there is one type of business that my Democratic friends always support, and that is the lawsuit business. As he pointed out, about half of the States have taken steps to protect their citizens from frivolous litigation and other litigation that would arise out of their good-faith following of the guidelines laid down by the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control. That is what we proposed here in the Senate. And my friend's, the Senator from Illinois's view did prevail because I found out that there is one--the most powerful lobby here in Washington, DC, is the trial bar, and, unfortunately, it is not just big corporations. I am sure big companies can take care of themselves. They have got lawyers; they have got compliance officers; and they have got people who can help them figure out how to deal with the pandemic. It is the mom-and-pop businesses, the music venues, the houses of worship, the schools, and the universities--those were the ones that were reluctant to reopen, even complying with the CDC guidelines, because they were afraid of being sued into oblivion. So my colleague's views did prevail here in the Senate, unfortunately, but, thankfully, States like mine--Texas is currently in legislative session taking appropriate steps to avoid this sort of frivolous litigation, which will be like a wet blanket on our economic recovery and on job creation. Again, this is not a get-out-of-jail free card. These are citizens--American citizens--trying to do the best they can under very difficult circumstances who have, in good faith, complied with the Centers for Disease Control guidelines. I would like to rewind just a little bit to 2019, before the pandemic hit, and recall that the American people were reaping the benefits of one of the strongest economies in American history. The driving force behind that economic boom, I think, was, in significant part, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which we passed in 2017, which sought to help American families and the economy thrive by keeping more of what they earned and turning over less to the Federal Government. In my opinion, there is no question that it was one of the biggest contributors to our booming economy. Our national unemployment rate had reached a 50-year low, and we saw record unemployment rates for Hispanics, African Americans, and Asian Americans. Unemployment among women fell to the lowest rate since the early 1950s. That was prepandemic. The benefits did not stop there, though. Wages were on the rise. The poverty rate hit an alltime low, and millions of new jobs were being added to our economy. Families were bringing home more of their hard- earned paychecks, and median household income reached a record high. But then the pandemic hit, as we know, and things took a very sharp turn downward. Businesses closed their doors; workers lost their jobs; and the unemployment rate skyrocketed from 3.5 percent to nearly 15 percent in April. Fortunately, this dark economic picture is gradually brightening. Thanks to the investment we have made in therapeutics and vaccines in a historically short period of time, thanks to the ingenuity and perseverance of workers and business owners, combined with the assistance that Congress has given them and, like I said, advancements in modern science, we have made steady progress. The unemployment rate has steadily declined over the last year, reaching 6 percent in March, but the new data from April is a cause for concern. The unemployment rate increased by a tenth of a percentage point. It didn't go down. It went up. It is a bump that wouldn't have raised any red flags before the pandemic. But this single data point is not the only indication of how our economy is faring. Last month, only 266,000 new jobs were added to the economy. That is a quarter--25 percent--of what economists had predicted. Now, again, 266,000 new jobs would not have been a bad jobs report before the pandemic because we were literally at nearly full employment, but we aren't currently in a build mode. We are currently digging our way out of a hole, a recession, to be specific. We are still missing 8 million jobs that existed prior to the pandemic. I don't think anyone expected all those jobs to come back overnight, but we did expect to be faring far better than this. As I said, the economists said this is a quarter of what they anticipated. Well, this is the first full month of data since our Democratic colleagues passed their $2 trillion so-called rescue plan on top of the trillions of dollars that we spent in 2020. If things continue to go the rate we are on now, we are in for an extremely long recovery. In other words, sometimes policies that emanate from Washington actually make the recovery harder, not easier. Unfortunately, the administration is doing more to slow down the recovery than they are to solve it. Last year, Republicans and Democrats worked together to provide unprecedented assistance to workers and their families hit by this economic downturn. Bolstered unemployment benefits were intended to provide laid-off workers with the money they needed to support their families until they could return to work, and over the last year, many of those workers have, fortunately, gotten back on the job. These benefits were a lifeline for millions of families and, today, there are still workers unable to find a new job. But there are, unfortunately, also people abusing the system, the generosity of the American people, the American taxpayer. The partisan relief bill our Democratic colleagues pushed through earlier this year extended supplemental unemployment benefits through September of this year, far beyond the amount of time anyone would have expected that those benefits, the supplemental benefits to the State unemployment benefits, would be needed. Even as vaccinations were on the rise, our Democratic colleagues insisted on extending these benefits through September, and many of us predicted the outcome. Last spring, workers couldn't find jobs. Now, businesses can't find workers. Between bolstered unemployment benefits and a steady stream of stimulus checks, many people who lost their jobs can't be convinced to return to the workforce. One restaurant owner in Texas said he had had plenty of applicants; people just won't show up for the interviews. One day, when he had scheduled eight interviews for potential employment, only one applicant showed up. The next day, the same thing happened-- five scheduled interviews; one person showed up. He said: It makes you wonder, are they just filling these applications out to collect unemployment? Because, of course, most unemployment benefits require you to apply for work and accept it if it is offered. But apparently here, whatever the incentives are, they are simply persuading some people to fill out applications but then not to seriously pursue work. In a year's time, we have gone from the strongest economy in a generation to the government paying people to stay home. This reminds me of the discussion we had a couple of years ago when the Green New Deal was launched. An overview of the bill was listed on the website of one of its authors and said that the government would foot the bill for any person who is ``unable or unwilling to work.'' ``Unable or unwilling to work,'' that the government would foot the bill--that was the proposal initially when the Green New Deal was rolled out. ``Unwilling to work.'' Don't like the job? Don't want to get out of bed in the morning? Don't worry; hard-working Americans who are getting up and going to work every day will foot the bill so you can stay home. I am sure it comes as no surprise that this received a great deal of criticism and even ridicule 2 years ago. Unfortunately for the taxpayers who actually do get up every morning and go to work, we are seeing this play out in real time. Folks who lost their jobs and who are now able but unwilling to return to work can continue to reap the bolstered unemployment benefits that our Democratic colleagues provided for them through September. Another restaurant owner in Texas said that between the stimulus checks and the enhanced unemployment benefits, it is tough to find people who want to work at all. He said: I believe our biggest competition in the job market is the government. This isn't an isolated problem. In Texas, the average unemployment benefits equal more than $36,000 a year. In Washington State, you can receive $39,000 a year in unemployment benefits. In Massachusetts, it is $41,000 a year. A few Governors have said their States will stop offering the bolstered benefits because it is a disincentive for workers to get back on the job. If you are able to stay home and bring in as much money or maybe even more than you were earning while you were actually working, what is the incentive to go back? This poor job report isn't a surprise to anyone who has spoken to employers, as I have, who have said repeatedly that no one wants to return to work when they can get paid to stay home. Another factor that has likely contributed to the slow recovery is the slow reopening of schools. Despite the fact that in many States, teachers are among the first individuals to get vaccinated, the return to classrooms has been incredibly slow. Less than half the school districts throughout the country are operating fully in person. The nearly $2 trillion that our Democratic colleagues rammed through Congress in March did little to get us back on track. It sent more than $120 billion more to K-12 schools that were already flush with cash but attached no requirement that the money be used to actually get children back in the classroom, where we know they will learn best. If at least one parent has to be home with their children for even part of the week, that makes it incredibly difficult for them to return to work. For single parents, it is virtually impossible. If we are ever going to get our economy back on track, we need to get our children safely back in school. We need to get people who are able but who are currently unwilling to work to get back on the job. And we need to supply the businesses that managed to survive this past year with a reliable workforce. Right now, the biggest hurdle to our economic recovery is the government itself. That needs to change. If you asked the President or a number of our Democratic colleagues in the Senate, they would say the solution is easy--the American Jobs Plan. Let's spend more money. This proposal is part social safety net, part infrastructure, and part taxpayer-funded spending spree. It is really designed to transform America into Europe--a social safety net economy. It spends more than $2.5 trillion on things like electric vehicle chargers and home healthcare, which we are happy to debate in any other context, but what we really need is a jobs plan to get America back to work, not another Trojan horse like we saw passed earlier this year and is currently being advertised, for example, under the guise of being an infrastructure bill. In order to finance this plan, along with the President's American Families Plan, our Democratic colleagues want to enact the largest tax hike in a generation. So contrary to what we did in 2017 by lowering the tax burden and giving people more of what they earned--and we have seen those tremendous economic results as a consequence--our Democratic colleagues want to, while we are still at 6 percent unemployment, raise taxes, which will further retard the economic recovery. So to recap, the plan for economic recovery is to make it more expensive for businesses to operate and nearly impossible for them to find workers. No wonder the economy isn't rebounding like we had hoped. That is what happened to the million jobs that were projected to be in the latest jobs report, but it was unfortunately a disappointing 25 percent of those million jobs. So instead of building on the successes of 2017 and the prepandemic economy, the administration wants to double down on the old, tired belief that America can tax and spend and regulate itself to prosperity. We don't need dramatic tax increases for sweeping social safety programs to get our economy back on track. We need to replicate the same factors that led to our banner prepandemic recovery. We need to get our children safely back in the classroom so their parents can return to the workforce. We need to stop paying workers to sit on the sidelines, and we need to give the job creators the ability to drive our economy forward. Democrats don't have an ``American Something Plan'' for every problem. Sometimes all the government has to do is get out of the way I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this has been a tough year since COVID- 19 became a global pandemic. There are many lessons to be learned from this pandemic. One of them that jumps out at me as being abundantly obvious is the real-world consequences of vulnerable supply chains. We almost began to believe, because cheap consumer goods could be made in China or someplace overseas, that that was the optimal arrangement. And certainly consumers in America have benefited from low prices when it comes to a number of things that are not made in this country. But some of the things that we depend upon, whether it is for public health or to keep our economy going or for our national security, are dependent on vulnerable supply chains. Perhaps the easiest one for everybody to identify with was the shortage of personal protective equipment. I remember when I called my Governor in Texas, he said: Two things you can get us--more PPE and more testing. Well, we produce so much testing capability now you don't hear much about that. But it was true that our hospitals needed masks, gloves, gowns, and ventilators to keep our frontline healthcare workers safe as well as other patients. At one point the situation became so dire, when it came to personal protective equipment, that first responders asked the public to help boost their supplies. They welcomed donations of N- 95 masks from folks who had extra boxes in their garage or gloves from hair salons that had closed their doors. We didn't reach that point because of the lack of preparation by those hospitals or healthcare workers but because of our reliance on other countries to produce that essential medical gear. China, it will surprise no one, is a major supplier of PPE. And since much of their stock was sent to hot spots in the earliest days of the pandemic, including in Wuhan, we were left to rely on the relatively small number of domestic manufacturers here in the United States. But I am here today not to talk about PPE but another supply chain breakdown with far-reaching consequences, and this time it is semiconductors. While semiconductors are something that perhaps most people are not intimately familiar with--but let me put it this way: Anything that has an on-off switch involves a semiconductor. They are the underlying technology in our most used products, things like cell phones, computers, cars, televisions, dishwashers. That is right, just about anything with an on-off switch. These are small integrated circuits that keep getting smaller and smaller and smaller, which means you can put them on a device like this; whereas, in the past, you may recall, Madam President, I remember the first cell phones that came out looked like a brick, but because semiconductors got so much more sophisticated and so much more powerful, you can put hundreds, perhaps thousands, of them on a device like this. These chips are necessary not just for consumer products but for other things as well, like the cell towers that keep us connected and the advanced weapon systems that support our national security. Even ventilators at hospitals require semiconductors. In short, we need semiconductors for our most prevalent and critical products, but the vast majority of chips are no longer made in the United States. Taiwan dominates semiconductor manufacturing, and one company, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, virtually controls the market. Last month, TSMC accounted for more than half of the total foundry revenues. Foundries are the manufacturing facilities that make semiconductors. Companies in Taiwan control 63 percent of the global market. Well, you don't have to look very far to see what a supply chain breakdown might look like because currently we are getting a taste of what it is like to not have access to the semiconductors that the U.S. economy needs. Right now, the demand for chips far exceeds supply. There is a global shortage of semiconductors that is creating serious impacts in nearly every industry, from consumer electronics to national security. Texas is home to companies across a whole range of affected industries, and last week, I was able to sit down with leaders from a few of those companies in Dallas to learn more about the impact of this shortage. We heard from a Hewlett Packard executive about the difficulties this has created in consumer electronic manufacturing covering a whole gamut of products. An executive from Raytheon, a national defense company, talked about how a steady supply of chips is important to our national security. These tiny technologies, these tiny circuits help support American warfighters around the globe. We know now that the auto industry is among the hardest hit, and I heard from leaders last week from General Motors and Toyota about how their companies are coping. Chris Nielsen from Toyota said that when he first started with the company, you could count the number of chips on a given vehicle on two hands. That is certainly not the case today. Think about all the high-tech features in cars these days--navigation devices, Bluetooth, automatic braking, backup cameras, and a variety of sensors. All of those depend on semiconductors, and that is on top of standard features like power steering, electric windows, air- conditioning, and windshield wipers. This adds up to dozens and dozens of chips for the various components of a single vehicle, and that supply is getting harder and harder to come by. At the beginning of the pandemic, automaker suppliers predicted a drop in car sales and canceled existing chip orders. Semiconductor manufacturers replaced the auto chip capacity with other in-demand things like personal computers for kids learning at home or more ventilators to use with COVID-19 patients. But Americans kept buying cars at the prepandemic level. Unfortunately, the shortage of semiconductor manufacturing capacity and the long lead time for chip making has meant a shortage of chips that will likely last through the summer for the auto industry, and it has forced many auto makers to slash production because they simply don't have enough chips, and they are laying workers off. Some have shifted production to focus on the most in-demand models, while others removed some of the tech bells and whistles. But the impact goes far beyond the options available on a car lot. For every production or assembly line that is cut, there are hard- working men and women who lose their jobs, as I said. As a reminder, this industry reaches across virtually every business and every national security company in America--automotive, consumer electronics; everything from the F-35, our fifth-generation stealth fighter, down to your cell phone, agriculture. Some of them even power children's toys. Well, there is a clear problem with this vulnerable supply chain, and the question is, How do we fix it? How do we solve it? When we faced supply chain shortages at the start of the pandemic, companies of all types began to shift their manufacturing to help alleviate some of the strain. Distilleries in Texas and across the country began making hand sanitizer, and everyone, from big clothing manufacturers to entrepreneurial kids, produced cloth face masks. But with semiconductors, it is not that simple. In order to build a single chip, you need a very expensive, highly advanced piece of equipment. You also need skilled workers, and you need a lot of lead time. It can take months to create a single chip. Building a new foundry, which is a manufacturing facility, is a huge and expensive undertaking. A single foundry can cost upwards of $10 to $20 billion. Yes, that is with a ``b.'' It is $10 to $20 billion for a single foundry. During our conversations last week in Dallas, a Qorvo executive talked about how the process of building a new chip fab isn't just expensive, it takes a lot of time. It can take years to receive all of the necessary equipment. Time is of the essence, and fortunately a solution is not as daunting as it could seem. In part because of the dependency of this vulnerable supply chain, particularly with Taiwan, Senator Mark Warner, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I introduced the CHIPS for America Act to help bolster our domestic semiconductor manufacturing. When we first introduced this bill, the chip shortage wasn't nearly as pervasive as it is now, but the writing has been on the wall for years. As our reliance on semiconductors has steadily increased, the U.S. share of global semiconductor manufacturing has decreased. Since 2000, the United States has dropped from producing roughly a quarter of the world's semiconductors to only 12 percent. And I am sure it comes as no surprise that as our manufacturing capacity has gone down, China's has gone up. In the same period of time, China has gone from manufacturing zero chips to 16 percent of the world's supply, and it plans to invest another $1.4 trillion in semiconductor technologies. Yes, America has lost ground to our global competitors, and unless we take action, it is estimated that by 2030, 83 percent of global semiconductor manufacturing will be in Asia. This presents a huge risk to both our national security and our global competitiveness, and we need to take action now to reverse the tide. That is what the CHIPS for America Act will do. The premise of this legislation is straightforward: create a Federal incentive program to encourage chip manufacturing in the United States of America. Rather than relying on foreign manufacturers or competing against other countries for the small supply of chips, let's bolster the supply of American-made semiconductors. This way, we can secure some of our most vulnerable supply chains. We can create thousands of well-paying American jobs and boost our global competitiveness by supplying made- in-America chips to our friends and allies around the world. In the 1980s, President Reagan and Congress led the defense budget buildup to counter military-based, geostrategic threats that contributed to the end of the Cold War. This legislation fills a similar purpose by securing our critical supply chain from the ever- evolving economic and national security challenges ahead. Other governments have made similar investments in semiconductor manufacturing--not only China but South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Germany, among others, including a more than $100 billion pledge to boost semiconductor manufacturing in the European Union. It is time for the United States not to just follow suit but to lead. The CHIPS for America Act has received broad bipartisan support both in the House and the Senate, and it became law in January. That is the authorization part, but now we have the important job of backing these programs with funding Back in February, I spoke to President Biden about the importance of getting this done, and I am glad to say that there is bipartisan, bicameral support, and the administration has made this a priority as well. Last month, I sent a letter to President Biden urging him to prioritize funding for these initiatives, and more than 70 colleagues, Republicans and Democrats from the House and the Senate, cosigned the letter. If we are looking for something important to do that has broad bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate and is supported by the Biden administration, this is it. Bolstering domestic semiconductors is good for our economy, our national security, and our global competitiveness. This current shortage is a reminder of how critical it is to take action today so a lean supply of semiconductors does not become the new normal. We have a big opportunity ahead of us, and success is our only option. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, last night, the American people heard from President Biden in his first address to a joint session of Congress. The American people heard him speak about many of the same themes he touched on in his inauguration: unifying the country, healing the soul of our Nation, healing the divisions that divide us. It sounds great, but those who have paid attention to the President's actions know that his rhetoric and his actions don't line up. The only legislative achievement so far for President Biden has been an eye-popping $1.9 trillion piece of spending that was branded as COVID-19 relief. It was so controversial that our Democratic colleagues didn't bother to use the standard legislative procedure. Instead, they used the budget reconciliation process so they could make it a law without a single Republican vote--hardly coming together and unifying the country. As expected, President Biden had the audacity to brand this legislation as the reason why we have made such progress in fighting COVID-19. He touted the fact that America has provided more than 220 million COVID vaccinations during his first 100 days in office. But he didn't mention the fact that less than 1 percent of the funding in his signature legislation actually supported vaccinations--less than 1 percent. Less than 10 percent was directly related to COVID-19 at all. If there were any doubts that this liberal spending binge was about to end, President Biden cleared that up last night too. He talked about his more than $2.6 trillion American Jobs Plan, which relies on a very generous interpretation of the word ``infrastructure,'' or should I say Orwellian. He discussed the $1.8 trillion American Families Plan, which includes everything from universal preschool to free community college, to mandatory paid leave policies and tax provisions. You know, you have to love politicians when they talk about giving away free stuff. The folks back home know better. Somebody has to pay for it. As my friend Senator Tim Scott said in the Republican response last night, these policies could put Washington even more in the middle of Americans' lives, from cradle to college. These three proposals total more than $6 trillion--an amount so large, it is hard for any of us to wrap our head around it. That is on top of the money that was spent last year in a bipartisan effort to defeat COVID-19. The proposals equate to a spending rate of $60 billion a day during the President's first 100 days in office. Six trillion dollars is one-quarter of our gross domestic product. If you convert our country's World War II spending into today's dollars, the three Biden spending proposals are even more expensive than what it cost us to arm and defeat Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. But I want to be clear. These aren't wartime expenses. These aren't even necessary expenses, in many cases. These proposals have absolutely nothing to do with our current fight against COVID-19. Two hundred billion dollars to build or retrofit ``sustainable'' places to live; $225 billion for paid family leave; $178 billion on electric vehicle chargers--more socialism for rich people; $400 billion for home-based care. This money adds up pretty quickly. I am not saying our country should cut off all of our spending altogether. There are necessary expenses and investments that need to be made. But this is not the time for a spending binge. We need to make smart financial decisions that will serve the next generation, not drive them further and further into debt. The biggest question here, though, as with any type of government spending, is, How are you going to pay for it? For the Biden administration, the answer is simple: higher taxes. In fact, the President has proposed the largest tax hikes in more than half a century Now, economics 101 would teach you that tax increases aren't a clear and easy way to boost revenue, especially when your economy is already on a fragile footing. President Obama observed as much when we were recovering from the great recession of 2008, that raising taxes during a recovery from a recession is a bad idea. Raising trillions of dollars in new taxes will not set us up for a strong recovery; it will simply throw even more wrenches into our sluggish economic engine. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the American economy was on a roll. The economy was booming. Unemployment was at a 50-year low. Companies were coming back on shore, moving their headquarters to the United States, in part because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act set the stage for this recovery. Instead of building upon what we did in 2017, the administration now wants to repeal those tax provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and double down on the old, tired talking points that America can simply tax and spend and regulate itself into prosperity. Massive tax hikes are not the way to stabilize a shaky recovery, and I worry how much damage these increases will do if our Democratic colleagues insist on doing more partisan, party-line legislating. The President did nothing to ease my concern about another looming problem, and that is the crisis on our border. For months, the President and members of his administration have denied what is a clear and growing crisis on the border. I hoped he might finally acknowledge the reality of the situation in his prime-time address and commit to working together with us to solve it, but no such luck. Instead, he talked about the need to provide a solution for DACA recipients and undertake broader immigration reform. I want to be clear here. I agree that Congress should take action to give DACA recipients the legal certainty and stability they deserve. This is a priority for folks on both sides of the aisle, and I hope we will finally be able to get a bill on the President's desk to help these young people who have done nothing wrong. More broadly, there is no denying our immigration system is in need of reform. It is outdated and inefficient and simply doesn't meet the needs of our country today. But we are not ready for those types of conversations until we solve the immediate crisis at the border. Last month alone, more than 172,000 migrants crossed our southern border, and 100,000 crossed in February. Nearly 19,000 of those individuals who came across last month were unaccompanied children. We have seen migration in the past, surges, but never anything like this and never during a pandemic. There are serious risks to our law enforcement officials, our nongovernmental associations, and, of course, to the migrants themselves. Something needs to be done now before the crisis grows even larger. If you are cooking dinner for your family and the food in the oven catches on fire, are you going to keep stirring the pot on the stove? Are you going to set the table or call your kids to come downstairs for dinner? No. You are going to put the fire out first. That is what we need to do now. Before we can even have those necessary conversations about immigration reform, we need to put the fire out and put it out now. Once we have taken action on the border crisis, I hope we can have serious, bipartisan discussions about immigration reform and finally provide DACA recipients the certainty they deserve, but that can't happen until the crisis on the border is addressed. Like I said, I am disappointed that the President didn't address this in his speech last evening. I was hoping he would be willing to work with a bipartisan group of Senators and Congressmen who are eager to take action. Last week, Senator Sinema from Arizona and I introduced the Bipartisan Border Solutions Act, a straightforward and commonsense way to address this crisis. The bill already has the support of Members from both parties and in both Chambers, as well as a number of respected organizations. We would be glad to gain the support of the administration as well. But you can't solve a problem until you first acknowledge that you have a problem, and we have a problem with the crisis on the border. This is not going to get any better. We know that much of this migration is seasonal, and so the high numbers--more than 300,000 that we have seen so far this year--are going to translate into even more numbers next month and next month and next. So the time to deal with this is now, but, like I said, until the administration acknowledges that there is a problem and that we need to work on it together, it is going to get nothing but worse. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, tomorrow evening, across the Capitol, President Biden will deliver his first State of the Union Address. As we continue to make headway in our fight against COVID-19, I expect the President to reflect on the tremendous progress we have made and encourage Americans to get vaccinated. So far so good. But I also believe he will try to frame the nearly $2 trillion partisan bill that was rammed through Congress earlier this year as the driving force behind that progress, even though less than 10 percent of the bill was related to COVID-19. I expect the President will call on Congress to pass his so-called infrastructure bill, which is similar to the COVID-19 relief bill in that it is a partisan bill having very little to do with the title of the bill itself. Only about 5 percent, in fact, goes toward roads and bridges, something we would all define as infrastructure. I am hopeful that the President will finally announce a plan to address the crisis at our southern border because, so far, the administration has been largely silent. The crisis at the southern border is real; it is big; and it is growing. We are breaking all the wrong kinds of records, including the numbers of unaccompanied children, total monthly border crossings, and the capacity levels at our care facilities. In March, we saw the highest number of border crossings on record, more than 172,000 individuals. That was a dramatic increase from the already eye-popping 100,000 in February--February, 100,000; March, 172,000; and, trust me, it is going to get nothing but worse. Nearly 19,000 of these individuals were unaccompanied children, the highest numbers we have ever seen in a single month. Sometimes people will say: That child came to America all by himself or herself. I want to disabuse my colleagues of any notion that a child--small child-- would make that trip to the United States ``by themselves.'' These children are being turned over to criminal organizations that are paid by the head to transport them from their country of origin into the United States and, unfortunately, these human smugglers, known in my part of the country as ``coyotes,'' care nothing for the welfare of those children. It is only the money that they could produce by transporting them to the United States that they care about. It is true we know that a spike in migration is not an entirely new phenomena and, sadly, neither is the dramatic increase in the number of children, but the current surge is unlike any we have experienced in at least the last 20 years, according to Director Mayorkas. These eye-popping numbers are compounded by a deadly pandemic. We have never seen that before. The pandemic, of course, has made once routine tasks like transporting and caring for migrants incredibly dangerous to the men and women who are performing those duties. In an effort to downplay the seriousness of the border crisis or to defer attention from it altogether, the administration has spent literally no time talking about it, especially when compared to the time and energy that it has dedicated to things like climate change. In fact, the Biden administration has spent the first several weeks of the surge denying that there is anything wrong at the border. Then they came up with some creative euphemisms to describe what has happened. They called it a challenge. They called it a situation. They called it a mess. Well, as long as you didn't call it a crisis, they didn't seem too bothered by it. A month ago, the President tapped the Vice President to lead efforts to address this crisis, which I thought was a positive sign, until I realized Vice President Harris acted as though the President had handed her a hand grenade and had pulled the pin because she couldn't get away from it fast enough, saying the next day that, well, her job is purely diplomatic in nature. She hasn't made a single trip to the border and, apparently, does not plan to do so at all. The President has given lip service to encouraging migrants not to come, but those statements mean absolutely nothing when all of the other signals being sent by this administration are: There is a green light and a welcome mat out for migrants to come to the United States. The situation is such that we are reaching a breaking point, and the Vice President and President could recognize that if they took the time to look and to learn from the very same people I have learned from, the experts who do these terribly difficult jobs along the border. As you can imagine, I have spent a lot of time listening to those folks because I represent them. They are my constituents. I visited border communities and heard from the Border Patrol officers, mayors, county judges, and NGOs, nongovernmental organizations, that are doing the best they can dealing with overwhelming numbers. I had the opportunity to actually talk to some of the migrants themselves about their journeys to our border and what brought them here. In the Rio Grande Valley, I spoke with three young mothers holding their crying infants less than a mile from the river they crossed into the United States. They had just undergone preliminary health screenings and were waiting for a bus to take them to a processing center. And, please, our colleagues should understand these migrants are not trying to get away from the Border Patrol. They are literally walking up to the Border Patrol and turning themselves in because they realize that is the next step to their being placed into the interior of the United States and completing their journey. Of course, as you can imagine, each of these mothers was hopeful. They made it to the United States and knew that as a family unit with young children they would be cared for by our government and then released into the interior of the United States. One of the mothers paid $3,600, she said, to get here. Another paid $6,000. This is big business for the smugglers and the criminal organizations that charge thousands of dollars to bring migrants to the U.S. border. I think it is important to note that this is not just a Mexico- Central American phenomena. A couple of months ago, when I was down at the Del Rio sector of the Border Patrol, the Border Patrol Chief showed us a slide with the names of 54 different countries represented by the people who were detained coming across the Del Rio sector just so far this year--54 different countries. As I said, many of these ``customers'' are children traveling with no parents. We know the journey is not a safe or easy one. In fact, it is dangerous, and it is hard, and many children arrive in critical health, having endured days, weeks, and months on the road. And the tragic fact is, some of these children don't make it. They die en route. I have heard horrific stories of physical and sexual abuse that occurs at the hands of the criminals, cartels, and human smugglers, and others traveling in a large caravan of immigrants. At the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, which is now serving as a shelter for migrant boys, I talked to one young man who endured a 3- month-long trek on foot from Central America to the United States. He told us he slept in the jungles along the way and that food was scarce. As you can imagine, he was happy now to be in a shelter receiving three square meals a day with a roof over his head. These stories are not unique. Many of us have seen the heartbreaking video of a young boy abandoned by smugglers in the Rio Grande Valley, dropped from the top of the wall into the interior of the United States. And we have read the story about a young girl who drowned trying to cross the Rio Grande River. And we have seen where the smugglers who care so little for the welfare of the people they are smuggling into the United States--and in one instance they threw a 6- month-old child into the river, knowing the Border Patrol would be diverted in order to save the child, which thankfully they did, while they skedaddled into the United States. I think it is heartbreaking that these children are enduring this sort of trauma, and it is infuriating that cartels and criminal organizations are getting richer in the process. So make no mistake, there is a crisis at the border and the policies of the Biden administration helped make it worse. Despite warnings from folks on both sides of the aisle, the administration revoked policies of the previous administration without any alternative plan in its place. Making matters worse, they entirely failed to prepare for the obvious consequences. Now the question is, What are they going to do to address it? I believe the American people deserve to hear from President Biden his outline of a plan to address the border crisis and to manage this surge of humanity in a fair and humane way. If the President is still working on that portion of the speech, I would like to make a friendly suggestion. There is a grassroots plan out there that was built from bottom up by the Senators and Congressmen most familiar with the crisis. It includes input from the men and women who dealt with migration surges in the past and who are working around-the-clock to manage the consequences of uncontrolled movement of migrants across the border now. It is called the Bipartisan Border Solutions Act. Senator Sinema from Arizona, who also represents a border State, and I have introduced this legislation here in the Senate. We are proud to work with two Texans, one Republican and one Democrat, Henry Cuellar of Laredo and Tony Gonzales, a Republican in the 23rd Congressional District. He represents, I believe, the largest single section of the U.S.-Mexico border of any Member in Congress. Our bill seeks to address the most urgent problems on the border today. There is more we can and should do, but at least this would address the most urgent problems. First, it would establish four regional processing centers to streamline the processing of migrants. Right now, the smugglers know that if they flood the zone with children, the Border Patrol are going to have to go off the frontline in order to take care of the children, leaving it wide open for smuggling narcotics and other migrants-- narcotics which, by the way, contributed to roughly 88,000 drug overdoses in America alone in the last 12 months. Our bill would provide protections for migrant children who come into the country without a parent or any relatives. It would help reduce the immigration court backlog and remove a major pull factor for migrants who do not have a legitimate asylum claim. But it would, more importantly, speed up the process for the most vulnerable migrants who do have a valid asylum claim. I think these are commonsense reforms that should earn the support of Members from both parties in both Chambers in Congress, as well as a number of respected outside organizations. We would be glad to receive the support of the administration or at least a phone call so we can begin conversations. Ignoring this crisis will not make it go away. We have spent the last couple of months demonstrating that inaction will only make it worse. As I said, we have seen surges in the past but never like this. The busiest months are usually April, May, and June, not February and March, which indicates, by historical trends, it is going to get worse and worse and worse. If our facilities and our personnel are overwhelmed today, which they are, and we haven't yet reached the normal busy season, how much worse are things going to get? How many more children will die in the hands of these criminals on their way to the United States before we decide to take action? As the Presiding Officer and I have discussed before, there is nobody else to solve these problems except us. On something as important as this, it seems like a logical area for Republicans and Democrats to work together to try to take at least some modest steps to address this crisis. I hope the President will work with us and be part of the solution and not part of the problem. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last few months, we have been spending a lot of time talking about the surge of migrants at our southern border and, as the Presiding Officer knows, we are having bipartisan meetings here to try to figure out how to address that and other challenges of our broken immigration system. We know the spike in migration is not a new phenomenon, and sadly, neither is the increase in the number of unaccompanied children. But the current surge is unlike anything we have experienced in the past. We are breaking all the wrong kinds of records, including the numbers of unaccompanied children, total monthly border crossings, and capacity levels at care facilities. And, of course, all of this is happening during a pandemic which creates serious risks for our law enforcement and for those caring for these migrants and for the migrants themselves. Unfortunately, the administration has not yet figured out how to stop this flow of illegal immigration. The President and his team are telling migrants: Don't come. But when it comes to his policies, all of his policies say: Come while you can. They haven't figured out how to replace Trump-era policies, and so what they have done is left a void that is being exploited by everybody from the coyotes, the human smugglers, the people who smuggle in drugs into the United States, as well as the people who understandably want a better life. Maybe they are fleeing poverty or violence. We all understand why people want to come to the United States, but we also believe the safest and fairest sort of immigration policy is legal immigration into our country. We are the most generous country in the world. We have naturalized about a million people a year. It is one of our comparative advantages compared to the rest of the world that restricts migration. Over the last few months, like many of us, I have spent a lot of time listening and learning from the folks on the ground in Texas who know the ins and outs of this topic better than anybody else. I have visited border communities and heard from Border Patrol officers, mayors, county judges, and nongovernmental organizations that try to help these migrants once they make their way to the United States, and whose experience precedes this current surge. I visited five of the facilities in Texas that are helping take care of the record number of migrant children in Carrizo Springs, Donna, Houston, Midland, and Dallas. I have heard about the heartbreaking circumstances under which many of these children have arrived on our doorsteps. I have seen the incredible ways that our nongovernmental organizations, like Catholic Charities, are trying to ease the burden of this crisis, even after a year of supporting their communities through a global pandemic. The reality of this situation is that we are quickly nearing a breaking point. We lack the facilities, the personnel, the resources, and the policies needed to manage this crisis. Law enforcement in border communities are being overwhelmed by the sharp increase in migration, and unless something changes, the entire system could collapse. The light is flashing red, and the time for action is now. That is why today I am proud to introduce the bipartisan Border Solutions Act, along with Senator Sinema, to address this crisis. It is no accident that both of us represent border States and that both of us have heard from our communities and stakeholders on the ground about how important it is for Congress to step up and provide some way to mitigate the current crisis. On the House side, we have two of my friends in the Texas delegation--Congressmen Henry Cuellar, from Laredo, and Tony Gonzales, who represents one of the largest border districts in the country. So we truly have a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation. Our knowledge of this crisis doesn't just come from the news or political talking points but, as I suggested, from real conversations with the real people who are dealing with this and have dealt with previous surges. We have heard from State and local leaders, law enforcement, NGOs, as I said, and a range of property owners whose property is being overrun by the coyotes and those who are involved in this illegal immigration process. So their input has been the driving force behind the bill, which includes, I believe, commonsense measures to address this crisis. It is not, admittedly, a comprehensive immigration bill, but we need to put the fire out first and then build on our success, once we have passed that legislation, to do the other things that I think we can probably agree on, on a consensus basis, such as we discussed with the majority leader and others last evening The Bipartisan Border Solutions Act is not about scoring political points. It is about solving a problem, and that problem is getting bigger every day. The most immediate problem is our inability to properly process the sheer number of people crossing our border. Our Border Patrol and Health and Human Services, and the Office of Refugee Resettlement are simply overwhelmed. In March, we saw the highest number of border crossings on record: 172,000 individuals. That was a dramatic increase from the eye-popping numbers in February, which totaled 100,000. As I said, we have seen these surges before but never a surge like this magnitude. Now, the busiest months for people to cross the border typically are April, May, and June but not February and not March. So we know that this is only going to get worse based on our historical experience. If our facilities and people are already overwhelmed, imagine how the strain will intensify if we do nothing. We already know that, in processing these migrants, important steps are being skipped in an effort to expedite the process. Normally, if someone comes across the border seeking asylum, for example, they will be processed and released with a notice to appear for a future court hearing. That document includes important information like when and where their first court date is set. In many cases, right now, it just isn't happening. Many migrants are being released in the interior of the United States with incomplete paperwork, and they are not given any notice to appear for a future immigration court date. And, you know, if they don't show up in court, a default order of deportation will be entered even if they have a meritorious claim for asylum. So it has real consequences. But what else can our government officials and our local communities do? Unfortunately, they do not want us to continue releasing people to the interior without a court date or information on what is needed in order to assert your claim. And as I said, without appearing in court, a migrant with a valid asylum claim won't be able to receive the relief that U.S. law provides for them. At one point, the situation was so bad, the Biden administration considered flying migrants to less busy locations on the northern border to be processed. So there is really no question we need to improve our capacity and our process to handle these migrants more thoroughly and efficiently. Our bipartisan bill here in the Senate and in the House will establish four regional processing centers in high-traffic areas along the border to streamline the intake of migrants. One reason that is so important, just beyond capacity issues, is that the smugglers who smuggle people into the United States for a price--part of transnational criminal organizations--they make a lot of money doing this, and they are smart. They know if they flood the zone with unaccompanied children, that the Border Patrol will go offline in order to take care of those children, which we want those children taken care of. But what the smugglers know and what the transnational criminal organizations know is once those Border Patrol come off the frontline, they are going to exploit that loophole by running drugs into the United States or more migrants. Last year alone--or the last 12 months alone, 88,000 Americans have died from drug overdoses. And 92 percent of the heroin that comes into the United States comes from Mexico, together with a lot of methamphetamine, fentanyl, cocaine, and you name it. So we are dealing with incredibly shrewd and crafty people who understand the border perhaps better than most of us do. One of the worst parts of the current crisis is the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children who are making the dangerous trip from Central America or Mexico without their parents. Many of us have seen the heartbreaking video of a young boy, abandoned by smugglers in the Rio Grande Valley, and he was asking for directions because he was lost. Smugglers left him behind. I don't know why. Maybe he was injured or ill or slowing them down, but these smugglers don't care about this young boy or any other human being. All they care about is the money. And we have also read the story about a young girl who drowned trying to cross the river. And who can forget the young girls, ages 3 and 5, who literally were dropped over the border wall by human smugglers? The truth is, migrant children endure unimaginable abuse and trauma in the hands of these criminal organizations. We need to try better, and we need to do better to provide protections to these children and ensure that they will not continue to be traumatized or abused once they cross our borders. For example, our bill also provides that children cannot be released into the custody of a relative or sponsor who could potentially inflict even more harm upon them. No sex offender, no child abuser, and no other dangerous criminal should be given the responsibility to care for one of these children. We also need to remove some of the pull factors that encourage migrants to make this dangerous journey to our border in the first place. Many smugglers, known colloquially as coyotes, know our immigration laws better than most Americans, and they know how to exploit them, as I said. There is no doubt our backlogged legal system is one of the pull factors for these migrants. One of the biggest selling points for the smugglers is the immigration court backlog, which is currently 1.3 million cases. On average, it takes 2\1/2\ years to get from the border to an immigration judge. A person or family can come here illegally and present weak or virtually nonexistent asylum claims with an almost certain guarantee that they will be able to stay in the United States for years while their claims are being adjudicated. That needs to change. Our legislation takes a number of steps to reduce the wait times and eliminate the backlog as a draw for even more illegal immigration and ensure that meritorious claims are recognized in a timely manner. The first part of this is, we need to hire more people. We need more immigration judges. We need more asylum officials. We need litigation teams and other staff who play a role in these legal proceedings. The only way to eliminate this backlog is to work through it, and this bill allows us to hire hundreds of people to do just that. Our legislation includes another important change to remove this backlog as a pull factor. During surge events like we are experiencing now, the cases of those arriving will be prioritized. In other words, we will put them at the front of line, not the back of the line where we will never get to them. For those with legitimate asylum claims, that should be good news. About 10 or 12 percent of the people who show up on our front doormat have legitimate asylum claims that are upheld by immigration judges, and we should provide them a timely hearing in front of a judge so they can receive the benefit of U.S. law. But this will also serve as a deterrent for those who know their asylum claims are weak. Why pay smugglers thousands of dollars to reach the United States if your case will quickly be heard and dismissed for lack of merit resulting in your return? That is one of the pull factors that we can establish and we can improve to deter people from wasting their hard-earned money with nonexistent or weak asylum claims. And, finally, the bill will ensure that migrants are treated fairly and humanely so we can be confident that our asylum system is working as we intended. This legislation includes a large number of other commonsense measures to alleviate staffing shortages, improve coordination between Federal, State, and local officials, expand language translation and legal orientation services for migrants, and the list goes on. Former Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost once described this surge in migration as like holding a bucket under the faucet. It doesn't matter how many buckets you have if you can't turn off the water. In the short term, we do need a bigger bucket. That includes facilities to process these migrants and personnel to adjudicate their asylum claims. But it won't matter how big that bucket is if we don't stop the flow or at least reduce it. We need to eliminate the pull factors that encourage migrants who do not qualify under our law for asylum from even attempting the dangerous journey to our border in the first place. That is exactly why the Bipartisan Border Solutions Act is the answer or an answer to the crisis at hand. This bill will deter illegal immigration without interfering with legitimate claims. It will ensure that migrants' claims are processed efficiently, without skipping important steps, and it will provide critical protections for children who come here alone. The fact that we have a bill that is bipartisan and bicameral is a testament to the commonsense reforms included in this legislation, and I have been proud to work with Senator Sinema, Congressman Cuellar, and Congressman Gonzales on this bill, and we would invite our colleagues to look at the bill and join us in cosponsoring it on a bipartisan basis. Now, one thing I can guarantee is this is not the end-all, be-all. This is not some silver bullet that is going to solve all of our problems, but what I think it will do is help restore public confidence that we are serious about enforcing our laws, while remaining generous in providing legal claims the benefit of a hearing and validation. We are, in fact, the most generous Nation in the world when it comes to legal immigration--naturalizing, roughly, a million people a year. But the truth is, my State and all our States, those of us on this bill currently, have borne the brunt of this crisis because of the failures of the Federal Government to deal with them. So we have developed a list of bipartisan cosponsors, and I hope the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the minority leader will commit to working with us to solve this crisis in a fair and humane way. And the last thing I will say is, we are all ears if somebody has a better idea, but so far we haven't seen anybody step up and say: I have got an answer or at least a partial answer or response that has bipartisan and bicameral support. So I hope our colleagues will take a look at this, will work with us, and if they have got a better idea, as I said, we are all ears

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as my friend the Republican leader likes to remind us, the Senate is not just a legislative body; we are also in the personnel business. One of the Senate's core responsibilities is to provide advice and consent for the President's nominees for a range of important jobs throughout the Federal Government. In fact, it is a constitutional duty of the Senate to perform that function. When the President is of the opposing party, there is all but a guarantee that you will not see eye to eye with every nominee, but the process isn't just about politics or judging nominees based on whether their opinions align with your own. As I see it, we are charged with evaluating these individuals to see if they are qualified not only to carry out the duties of their position but will also do so with honor and integrity. Take Attorney General Merrick Garland, for example. When the Senate considered his nomination, it became clear that he had both the experience and the temperament to lead the Department of Justice. Do we agree on everything? No. But he committed to do everything in his power to keep politics out of the Department of Justice, and I have no reason to doubt his credibility. The same could be said of the President's nominee for Deputy Attorney General, Lisa Monaco, who was confirmed yesterday by the Senate. Ms. Monaco is a longtime public servant who previously served for 15 years at the Department of Justice. Throughout her career, she has earned the respect of folks on both sides of the aisle, and I believe she will bring a wealth of experience and institutional knowledge to the Department. So my point is, I have supported the majority of President Biden's nominees thus far, and every single nominee has received bipartisan support at some level. But unfortunately, it looks like we are about ready to break that record of bipartisanship. Today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Vanita Gupta to serve as Associate Attorney General, the third highest official at the Department of Justice. Unlike previous nominees who have received bipartisan support, there is not a single person on this side of the aisle who believes that Ms. Gupta is fit to serve as the third in command at the Department of Justice. I can't predict what the final vote will be. It will be at 2:30. But I hear nobody on this side of the aisle saying she is an exemplar of the type of person who should serve in the Department of Justice. As I said, this is not about politics; nor are those of us who are opposed to her nomination opposed because of her gender or race. To the contrary, those are irrelevant. Instead, the lack of support for Ms. Gupta is a result of her radical record far outside the mainstream and her career as a partisan activist. In fact, she has championed radical policies basically all of her professional career. In addition, throughout the confirmation process, Ms. Gupta was asked about the long, long list of controversial, misleading, and sometimes outright false public statements that she has made in the past--her statement before the Judiciary last summer, for example, that we should effectively defund the police; her op-ed that argued we should effectively revoke qualified immunity for law enforcement in civil lawsuits; but worst of all were her prior statements on drug policy. In 2012, Ms. Gupta wrote in an op-ed in the Huffington Post that ``States should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs.'' ``All drugs.'' This is obviously an incredibly controversial statement and way out of step with most Americans' views, for good reason. What she said is, as long as they were small amounts, she would legalize heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, ecstasy, methamphetamine, you name it. When Ms. Gupta tried to distance herself from these previous positions that are published in black and white, here is what the Washington Post Fact Checker said: For this tango of previously unacknowledged flip-flops, Gupta earns an Upside-Down Pinocchio. Now I have seen a one Pinocchio, two Pinocchio, three Pinocchio, even a four, but I have never seen an upside-down Pinocchio for a ``tango of previously unacknowledged flip-flops.'' The Fact Check examined Ms. Gupta's confusing then and now statements on police budgets, qualified immunity, and drug policy, and that is what they found. Now, I understand and respect the fact that people's opinions can change over time. As we learn new information or have different experiences in life, we all understand that one's views can change. But there is a big difference between honestly forming a new opinion and undergoing a confirmation conversion to bury radical views on controversial subjects. After all, how could anyone support a nominee who advocated the decriminalization of all drugs, especially for the No. 3 spot at the Department of Justice? I am not sure anyone in this Chamber, Republican or Democrat, could support someone to serve in the upper echelon of the Justice Department who supported the legalization of heroin, fentanyl, and other dangerous street narcotics. That is why she attempted to whitewash it. She knew she couldn't get nominated, much less confirmed, if she didn't. But here is what we know about drug abuse in America. This is a map of national opioid death rates in America. As you can see, they go from the dark colors, which is where the death rate is 29 to 43 per 100,000 population, to the slightly lighter range, which is 20 to 29, roughly, people per 100,000, and then the lighter ones, obviously, until you get to the lowest one, which is 3.5 to 10.9. Every community in America has felt the pain and anguish from the opioid crisis. In 2019, there were more than 70,000 overdose deaths in America. There were 70,000 Americans who lost their lives. We are still waiting on complete figures from 2020, but preliminary data shows things are trending in the wrong direction. From June 2019 through May 2020, more than 81,000 Americans have died from drug overdoses. Fighting the opioid epidemic is a cause every person in this Chamber can get behind because, as you can see, each of our States has been impacted. In 2016, thanks to the hard work of a bipartisan group of Senators, we passed what became known as the CARA Act--the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act--to help more Americans break this devastating cycle of drug use, drug abuse, and overdose, and we appropriated tens of billions of dollars to fight this scourge. As I said and as you can see, no State has been spared the pain and suffering from the opioid epidemic, but we do know some have been hit harder than others. For example, one of the States, with the darkest color, with the highest rate of overdose deaths is Ohio. And we can see here what had happened in the period, roughly, from 2009 to 2019. From 2009 to 2019, 10 years, there were more than 33,000 drug overdoses and deaths in Ohio alone--33,000 Ohioans, each with their unique value, contribution, and story. It is an absolutely heartbreaking number of deaths that should have been prevented. Another one of those States with the worst problems with opioids was New Hampshire. In 2013, the drug overdose deaths per capita were slightly above the national average, at 15 deaths per 100,000. In New Hampshire, in 2016, just 3 years later, the death rate increased 158 percent. First responders across New Hampshire experienced a dramatic increase in the calls they got for overdoses so they started carrying Narcan, a medication used to reverse an overdose if you get there in time before the overdosed individual dies. They carry them in their emergency gear because these overdose calls became so common. Another one of those States hit particularly hard is West Virginia. In 2019, West Virginia had the highest overdose deaths per capita. For every 100,000 population, more than 52 were from an overdose, double the national figure. That is 21.6 per 100,000 that went up--that is the national--and the West Virginia number is double, as you can see. Our friend Senator Capito has been a tireless advocate for West Virginia families, many of whom have felt the pain of this crisis firsthand. She recently wrote an op-ed about this nominee and the contradictory and confounding statements she has made in the past, particularly on drug policy. Senator Capito wrote: It's hard to imagine the level of devastation [that] we would see if all of these drugs actually were legalized. And, it's even harder to imagine that a nominee for a critical law enforcement position would hold this view. I completely agree with our friend from West Virginia. Given the ruin that the opioid epidemic has dealt in communities across the country, I can't even begin to imagine how much worse it would be had the States heeded Ms. Gupta's call to decriminalize all drugs for personal use. If fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, and other highly addictive drugs were decriminalized, how many more Americans would become addicted? How many more would have died? How many more families would suffer the loss of a child? a sibling? a parent? I am profoundly concerned by Ms. Gupta's prior statements on drug policy, as well as her radical statements on defunding the police, disarming the police in civil lawsuits by eliminating qualified immunity, abolishing the death penalty for the most heinous crimes, and so much more. Worse, though, is her inability to be honest about her position on issues that would directly fall within her purview at the Department of Justice. The American people deserve to know that leaders at any government Department or Agency--but especially the Department of Justice--they deserve to know that these public servants are honest and will tell them the truth. As Ms. Gupta's upside-down Pinocchio indicates, no Senator can have the confidence that Ms. Gupta would be honest with them or tell them the truth. We hold hearings. We put witnesses under oath promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God, and we don't expect people will come into those hearings and lie. We ask followup questions. Perhaps there was some misunderstanding that you would like to clear up. Believe it or not, Ms. Gupta answered a written question under oath stating that she had never advocated for the decriminalization of all drugs, even though in 2012, in an op-ed she published in the Huff Post, she did exactly that. But then, for some reason, she decided to lie about it under oath to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. If she would lie to us, she would lie to you. And I fail to see how, for some reason, we think she will change the way she acts or behaves or improve her standard of behavior when it comes to honesty and truthfulness. We hold these hearings and ask these questions to understand the opinions and the character and the motivation of these nominees. But based on what the Senate has learned about Vanita Gupta, I don't believe she is fit to serve as the Associate Attorney General. The Department of Justice, perhaps more than any other Department or Agency, must be led by men and women of honesty and integrity, people like Merrick Garland and people like Lisa Monaco who received overwhelming bipartisan votes here on the Senate floor. High-ranking public officials at the Department of Justice cannot be motivated by partisanship. They must pursue no other agenda other than fair and impartial justice. In contrast, Ms. Gupta has shown she is a partisan activist with a penchant for skirting the truth. If confirmed as Associate Attorney General, I believe she has the potential to use the powerful tools at the Department of Justice to wage partisan warfare that has been part of her professional career to this point. If we can't trust her to be honest with us, how can we expect her to fulfill her duty of candor in courtrooms, including all aspects of the legal process that depend on honest, truthful answers and communications. If we can't depend on her to tell the truth at the Senate Judiciary Committee in the confirmation hearing, how can we depend on her to exercise her duty of candor when applying for a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, for example. Sadly, I believe Ms. Gupta will be a clear and present danger to the American people if she is given the muscle and might of the Department of Justice, as well as the entire Federal Government of the United States of America. I cannot support her nomination, and I would urge all of my colleagues to do likewise. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, at the appropriate time, I would ask the Senator to yield for a brief question. But I don't want to interrupt him in his train of thought.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. This is the quote from the article that Vanita Gupta wrote on November 4, 2012. It says: ``States should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs, particularly marijuana, and for small amounts of other drugs.'' And then in her sworn testimony, in response to written questions, she said: ``I have never advocated for the decriminalization of all drugs, and I do not support the decriminalization of all drugs.'' In 2012, support for the decriminalization of all drugs; in 2021, ``I have never'' supported ``the decriminalization of all drugs.'' I wonder if my colleague--I just simply can't reconcile those two statements, both given under oath to the Judiciary Committee. Can you reconcile those statements?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator to yield for one last question. We can all understand how people's views change over time, but there is no way to reconcile these two statements, 2012 and 2021, which is the reason I believe that Ms. Gupta, for some reason lost to me, decided to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee two inherently conflicting statements under oath. She could have gotten out of it the easy way and said: ``Well, I made a mistake'' or ``I forgot'' or ``My views changed over time.'' I would have accepted that. But to come back on questions for the record and to state something that is 180 degrees opposed to her views in 2012--I have not heard her, I have not heard the distinguished majority whip, I have not heard anybody be able to reconcile those two statements.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in a State as big as Texas--as the Presiding Officer knows, having lived in and around Houston for a number of years in his previous life--we rely on a strong network of roads and bridges to travel safely and efficiently. We have I-35, which spans the entire length of Texas, from north to south, and from Laredo all way to Dallas-Fort Worth. Much of that stretch, it seems like and feels like, is constantly under some construction. There are bridges that are part of people's daily commutes, like RM 2900 in Kingsland. After this bridge was destroyed by floodwaters a few years back, it didn't just create inconvenience in the community but also risks. It could take a firefighter an hour to get around the water. Fortunately, the Texas Department of Transportation and construction crews didn't waste any time, and I was able to join the dedication less than a year later. You heard that right. The bridge was destroyed, and less than a year later we dedicated the opening of that bridge. Then we have critical projects in the works, like the ``forts to ports'' corridor of I-14, which stretches from Fort Hood all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. This will connect our critical military installations to our seaports and provide a serious boost to our military readiness. These are much more than just roads and bridges. They are vital parts of our daily lives, trade, emergency response, and, of course, national security. And as we welcome more new Texans every day, things are nearing a breaking point. We can't punch above our weight much longer when it come to our transportation infrastructure. It is time--and I believe it is a bipartisan belief that this is the time--to invest in our Nation's infrastructure, and we know, historically, that this has not been a partisan issue. I am pro-infrastructure, and I imagine every person in this Chamber would tell you the same thing, regardless of whether they are from a red State or blue State. We have a strong history of working together to fund the networks of roads, bridges, airports, railroads, tunnels, and the ports that the American people rely on. For example, in 2015, we passed a 5-year highway and transit funding bill called the FAST Act, with overwhelming bipartisan support. It received 83 votes here in the Senate and 359 votes in the House, as well as the signature of President Obama. This legislation provided the certainty and stability our States need to make long-term investments in critical projects, and it was the first of its kind in more than a decade. Last Congress, we were poised to pass a similar bill. The Environment and Public Works Committee developed a truly bipartisan example of an infrastructure bill that built on the success of the FAST Act. That was led by Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, at the time, but it was unanimous. This legislation included provisions to rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges and improve road safety, protect the environment, and grow the economy. Once again, it received broad bipartisan support and passed the committee with unanimous support. As we know, the last year has brought us untold changes and, unfortunately, put this and other legislative goals on pause while we battled COVID-19. But now is the time to pick up where we left off and get a strong infrastructure bill signed into law. Unfortunately, the proposal by the administration is a far cry from what the country actually needs. For starters, the cost of the plan is beyond comprehension. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates said it will cost $2.65 trillion, nearly nine times the size of the last highway bill--nine times. When talking about this proposal, one House Democrat said: ``It's gonna to be a kitchen sink.'' The founding director of the Cornell Program in Infrastructure Policy said: Well, the administration certainly has a ``giant definition'' for what constitutes ``infrastructure.'' But even journalists are making fun of the scope of this plan, with one writing: ``Maybe the real meaning of infrastructure is what's in our hearts.'' Well, these aren't just jokes. Only about 5 percent of this proposal is directed at roads and bridges, what some have called core infrastructure. In fact, it puts more money toward electric vehicle chargers than pavement that we drive on every day. The proposal funds a long list of programs that are a far cry from what most people consider to be infrastructure: caregiving for the elderly and disabled, community colleges, programs to improve diversity in STEM careers. All of these are significant and important issues, but they don't belong in an infrastructure bill--certainly not one that proposes to raise taxes on the American people or to create more debt. Then there are the most absurd policies that really resemble the Green New Deal, which I note was just reoffered by Senator Markey and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez: more than $200 billion to build or retrofit more than 2 million ``affordable and sustainable'' places to live, a ``Civilian Climate Corp,'' and an unrealistic goal of 100 percent renewable-generated electricity by 2035. My State is an all-of-the-above State when it comes to energy, but I can tell you that if all you are depending on is renewable energy, without appropriate attention to the baseload you need, you are going to end up like we did, unfortunately, just a couple of months ago, with electricity going down due to extreme weather. I support efforts to rebuild our infrastructure, but this is not an infrastructure proposal. This is, really, much closer to the Green New Deal 2.0. It is an encore to the nearly $2 trillion wish list that our Democratic colleagues rammed through on a partisan basis earlier this year. Any attempt to claim that Republican won't work with Democrats on an infrastructure bill is completely disingenuous because this is not a good-faith attempt at bipartisanship. I would be happy to work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to craft an infrastructure bill that addresses our legitimate infrastructure problems, and I think every person on this side would agree with that. That would include traditional transportation, such as roads and bridges, as well as certain forms of nontraditional infrastructure, for example, broadband. The pandemic has really highlighted the digital divide that exists across our country, and as Americans relied on the internet to work, to attend school, for telehealth, and a long list of other activities, it has become increasingly apparent that we are far from where we should be when it comes to broadband access in this country. There is bipartisan support for a bill that addresses our most urgent infrastructure needs without tacking on unrelated partisan priorities. As far as the price tag of the bill, I am not married to a particular number. The last highway bill that became law was roughly $300 billion, and I think we all agree there is a need to pursue something bigger and bolder. But that needs to be limited to infrastructure. The final pricetag of that bill should be the result of bipartisan negotiations between Democrats and Republicans, not in numbers handed down from the administration, unilaterally. There is one point I want to make abundantly clear: A bipartisan infrastructure bill must exist instead of, not in addition to, our Democrat colleagues' unrelated priorities. We can't work in a bipartisan way to pass one bill only to have our Democratic colleagues then attempt to jam through on a partisan basis on reconciliation another long list of their priorities. In other words, we have to choose, and what I suggest we choose is bipartisan infrastructure legislation. The choice before our Democratic colleagues is whether to work together or attempt to go it alone. You really can't have both. We also need to be serious about paying for our infrastructure in a sustainable way. We have just spent trillions of dollars on coronavirus, not to mention the long list of priorities included in the most recent partisan bill. This is not a time to continue the spending spree. Investments in our roads and bridges are needed, but we need to figure out how they will be paid for. The massive tax hikes that the President has proposed are not a viable option. The burden will be borne by both American employers and workers. In previous years, the vast majority of infrastructure funding came from the highway trust fund. Every State sends dollars to this fund, which finances infrastructure across the country. But the formula to distribute the funding is out of date and is facing serious deficits. Making matters worse, Texans are getting short-changed and carrying the weight of these shortfalls, as a so-called donor State. We get 92 cents back on every dollar we send to Washington, DC. That is not the same treatment for every State. In fact, we receive a lower rate of return than every other State. If we want to have any long-term success in maintaining our roads and bridges, we need to bring this funding formula up to speed as well. Unfortunately, the administration's proposal fails to do that, and instead of making any repairs to the highway trust fund, it leans on damaging tax hikes to pay for this broad range of unrelated policies. The President has, indeed, proposed the largest set of tax hikes in more than a half a century. Economics 101 would teach you that tax increases aren't a clear and easy way to boost revenue, especially when your economy is already on fragile footing. I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will be willing to work with us to pass a true infrastructure bill, one that will, first and foremost, improve roads, bridges, airports, and other critical projects all across the country. Notably, we must find a responsible way to pay for this, but tax hikes are not the answer. We have always had this idea in the highway trust fund that user fees--the people that buy gasoline and use the roadways--were the ones to pay for them, not pay for them out of general revenue. And I think we need to continue down this user-fee model, as opposed to deficit spending and adding to our debt. Again, in closing, let me just say, if our Democratic friends want to act in a bipartisan way, there are people on this side of the aisle, including me, that would be happy to sit down and start talking. But, first of all, our Democratic colleagues must agree to abandon their long wish list of unrelated partisan provisions. They can't work with us on an infrastructure bill and then follow it with a reconciliation bill that includes the kitchen sink. A bipartisan bill to rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges is possible. We have done it before, and we can do it again. I yield the floor.