John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, later this afternoon, the Senate will vote on whether to discharge the nomination of Vanita Gupta, the nominee for Associate Attorney General, from the Judiciary Committee. Ms. Gupta is a polarizing figure, as reflected by the vote in the Judiciary Committee. It was a tie vote, 11 votes to 11. So she failed to receive a majority support from the committee, and now the Senate must vote on whether or not her nomination can come to the Senate floor for consideration. I want to be clear, though, the passionate opposition of this nominee is not about politics. I voted to confirm the vast majority of President Biden's nominees, my attitude being that he won the election and he is entitled to populate a Cabinet and other important positions with people he has confidence in. But there are limits. The President's nominees for the top two positions for the Department of Justice did not require this extraordinary step. I voted to support Ms. Monaco's nomination, who has been nominated for Deputy Attorney General, as well as the Attorney General himself, Judge Merrick Garland. As I said, those were not controversial nominees. This nominee is a polarizing, partisan activist and should not be confirmed to this important position. The lack of support for Ms. Gupta is not a reflection on her political affiliation, nor of her gender, nor of her race, as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee intimated. The opposition to Ms. Gupta is a direct result of her history of inflammatory public statements, radical policy positions, and a laundry list of misleading statements and flat-out lies during her sworn testimony before the Judiciary Committee. The position of Associate Attorney General is not some bureaucratic paper-pusher. This is the third ranking position at the Department of Justice, the highest law enforcement Agency in America. The American people deserve to know that the individuals leading the Department have no agenda other than to fairly and impartially administer justice, but based on everything we now know about Ms. Gupta, I do not have faith in her ability to deliver on this most basic principle. Ms. Gupta is not a career public servant. She is a partisan culture warrior with a radical agenda. During her tenure in jobs outside of government, during which she was a registered lobbyist, Ms. Gupta was quite outspoken about her views on just about every topic you can imagine. She slandered Supreme Court nominees. She vilified organizations that she disagreed with. She even took a crack or two at a number of our Senate colleagues. But the words I find most troubling are those that relate directly to the policies of the Department of Justice itself. As the Judiciary Committee evaluated Ms. Gupta's qualifications, she was asked about her previous writings and her public statements on a variety of topics. There is a lot to sort through. First, following the tragic killing of George Floyd last summer, people across the country engaged in an important discussion and debate about the use of force by police officers and responsible policing strategies. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this very topic, and Ms. Gupta was one of the star witnesses. At the time, she was the president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. She testified before the committee there, under oath, that it is ``critical for state and local leaders to heed calls . . . to decrease police budgets and the scope, [and] role, and responsibility of police in our lives.'' Well, for obvious reasons, the phrase ``decrease police budgets'' and ``defund the police'' lead to the same conclusion that she believes police departments need less--not more--resources in order to maintain public safety. When Ms. Gupta was asked about this at her confirmation hearing, she did not mince words. She said she does not support defunding the police. So I followed up with a written question for the record. I asked Ms. Gupta, following the hearing, to explain the distinction between ``decrease police budgets'' and ``defund the police,'' so we could understand her views. After all, the Associate Attorney General will play an important role in making grants to fund States and local police departments. But Ms. Gupta offered no explanation. She simply said, once again, she does not support defunding the police. Now, I can understand when people change their minds. I think reasonably intelligent people, as they acquire new information, maybe reflecting on their previous points of view, change their minds, but Ms. Gupta did not offer a single bit of information for this shift between her statement last summer saying that State and local leaders must heed calls to ``decrease police budgets'' and her current position, which is that she does not support defunding the police. Then there were her statements on qualified immunity. This is an important issue for Congress to discuss and debate because it is qualified immunity that protects law enforcement officers, given the nature of the discretionary decisions they need to make in emergency circumstances. Again, there are people on both sides of that argument. But in June 2020, less than a year ago, Ms. Gupta argued in a Washington Post opinion piece that it is time to revisit qualified immunity. Well, you can imagine I asked her about that at the hearing. And, again, she said, unequivocally, she does not support eliminating qualified immunity. But, once again, we received no explanation for her changed position. And while her statements are intentionally, I believe, unclear at best, her words about previously held beliefs on drug policy represent an irreconcilable conflict. Back in 2012, Ms. Gupta authored an opinion piece on November 4, 2012, in the HuffPost. In that article, she argued that the States should decriminalize possession of all drugs--all drugs, not just marijuana, all drugs, presumably, to include prescription opioids, heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl, you name it-- all drugs. Well, I don't have to remind Members of this Senate that more than 80,000 Americans have died from drug overdoses this last year alone, and much of it would include the sorts of drugs that, back in 2012, Ms. Gupta said should be legalized--or at least decriminalized, to be fair--decriminalized, although the distinction between that may be lost on some. Well, I am sure that this will surprise no one that this is a controversial view. Congress has spent billions upon billions of dollars to fight the opioid epidemic in this country. We passed the Cures Act, the CARES Act, to try to get at this epidemic of opioid addiction and abuse. But Ms. Gupta, circa 2012, said that these drugs--all drugs--should be decriminalized for personal use. Well, I followed up with a question because, during the hearing, Ms. Gupta talked about how her views had evolved since 2012. Again, as we all have different experiences over time, we learn new information, perhaps reflect on our previously held views, I understand how people's views can change. But then she wasn't satisfied with that answer. So I followed up with a written question. I asked Ms. Gupta if she ever made this statement that is printed in black and white in the HuffPost, dated circa 2012. She said: ``I have never''--never-- ``advocated for the decriminalization of all drugs.'' She said: ``States should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs.'' Compare that with ``I have never advocated for the decriminalization of all drugs.'' Those are irreconcilable positions And the fact is, if you believe Ms. Gupta circa 2012, it is simply a lie. It is a lie under oath, potentially perjury. I mean, why do we swear witnesses in if some of them will take the burden of their oath so lightly and they would lie with impunity? I mean, what is the purpose? She didn't just lie to me. She lied to Chairman Durbin. She lied to Senator Whitehouse. She lied to every member of the Judiciary Committee. And, unfortunately, she is lying to the Senate. She has been given many opportunities to reconcile these radically conflicting statements. These are diametrically opposed positions. If she had a good answer, if she cared enough, if she respected Members of the Senate enough, she would have provided us an answer rather than just an outright lie. Here is a fact check from the Washington Post, that great ultra or uber-conservative publication. As you can see, they gave her a unique Pinocchio award. I have never seen a Pinocchio award like this. Ordinarily, they would say, well, you get one, two, or three, or four Pinocchios based on whether or not we find this to be a misrepresentation of the facts or a lie. But here, they said: ``For this tango of previously unacknowledged flip-flops, Gupta [deserves] an Upside-Down Pinocchio''--``Upside-Down Pinocchio.'' They went on to say Vanita Gupta's shifting views on defunding the police, decriminalizing drugs deserve this Upside-Down Pinocchio, March 10, 2021. If you published an op-ed saying the sky is purple and now you say the sky is blue, don't tell us you never thought the sky was purple. Have a little more respect for your obligation for one of the highest positions in the Department of Justice not to lie to the Judiciary Committee or the Senate. Have the courage to tell us the truth and stop trying to deceive the Senate in order to be confirmed. As I said earlier, Ms. Gupta was a registered lobbyist and spent a good part of her career pushing a very specific agenda and a range of radical policies to go along with it. In the process, she disparaged individuals, organizations, and political parties who dared to oppose her beliefs. She wrote about the growing number of conservatives on the Federal bench and said: ``Republicans have planted the seeds of this takeover for decades--and now, they are leaping into action.'' I wonder if she realized she might one day be in a position of advocating on the Department of Justice before the very same judges that she has disparaged. She tweeted that Justice Kavanaugh ``lied'' to the Judiciary Committee and ``showed himself to be a partisan.'' And she is going to represent the American people in the highest Court in the land, populated by Justices she has called a liar? Well, she has called a number of other Federal judges--she has described a number of them with similar disdain. Now, I find it hard to believe that these views, which are not from decades-old law school writings or that you can write off to immaturity or perhaps satire--like we heard yesterday from Ms. Clarke, who has been nominated to the civil rights division--these are recent public statements which this nominee no longer claims to hold. Like I said, if confirmed, she will supervise litigation in front of the many Federal judges she has disparaged, and she will be in an extraordinarily powerful position to bend the Department of Justice to her political whims. Ms. Gupta is the daughter of a gentleman who heads up a chemical company that produces all sorts of chemicals for a variety of legitimate purposes. It looks like, from her financial disclosure statement, he has been very successful and so has Ms. Gupta, in family trusts worth tens of millions of dollars, much of it including the stock of Avantor, the company that her father heads. I realize Ms. Gupta is not personally responsible, as a shareholder in this company, but it is clear, I believe, from an investigative journalism story by Bloomberg dated September 2020 that Avantor was selling acetic anhydride, an essential ingredient in converting poppies to heroin, for at least the last decade. She owns tens of millions of dollars' worth of that stock. I have asked the Attorney General and the Securities and Exchange Commission to look into Avantor's conduct because, if, in fact, an American chemical manufacturer has been selling acetic anhydride in the country where they know that it will be available to the criminal cartels and drug runners--and they should know that 92 percent of the heroin made in Mexico, using acetic anhydride, manufactured by Avantor and its subsidiary in Mexico--that is a serious, serious problem. So I have asked the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to look into it. Asked about this, asked about Avantor's activities, Ms. Gupta said: ``I'm aware of the allegations.'' I do not have faith, nor should the Senate have faith, nor should the American people have faith that Ms. Gupta will act fairly and impartially if confirmed to this position. If she was willing to lie to the American people during her confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee, imagine how she might treat others with disdain, people who hold opposing views in our society, using the great weight and power of the Department of Justice perhaps to further some of her partisan, political, ideological agenda. Can we really expect someone with this track record, this history, to live up to the highest ideals of the Justice Department? And, for example, we all know lawyers are taught that, if you have exculpatory information about a criminal defendant, you have a duty to disclose that to the other side. If you are the prosecutor, you have a duty to disclose it to the defendant so it can be cross-examined and used in the course of a jury trial. Do we really expect someone who appears willing to lie with such disregard for the truth to disclose exculpatory material that a person sued by the Department of Justice would have a right to, or would she just try to sit on it? Can we really expect her to hire people around her based on merit as opposed to some political litmus test? Can we really expect her to disclose material information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or encourage folks under her supervision to be meticulous and forthright with the court when seeking warrants? I don't think so. Given the incredible power of the Department of Justice and all the tools available to it, Ms. Gupta's radical beliefs and agenda--that she believes in sincerely, apparently--these would be more than words on a screen. Her views would be terribly dangerous to the American people. Based on her track record, I have no confidence in her ability to act with fairness, candor, or integrity. As a member of the bar, as a lawyer, you have a higher duty, than even a regular citizen, of candor. The model disciplinary rules that apply to lawyers, members of the bar, like Ms. Gupta, who is a member of the New York bar as well as the Supreme Court bar--they are subject to discipline from grievance committees in those jurisdictions. We know that they have real teeth because former President Clinton, as you may recall, lied under oath as a lawyer and was disbarred by the Arkansas Bar Association and also had to give up his membership in the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. If the Senate is going to make a habit of allowing witnesses to come in and lie under oath in such a brazen way, why do we even go through this Kabuki theater? Why do we require them to take an oath in the first place if you can lie with impunity? What is the point of going to these hearings if the witnesses are not going to be truthful and answer our questions honestly? As I say, I have grave concerns about this nominee's ability to separate her well-documented personal beliefs from her role as a high- ranking official at the Department of Justice. So it will come as no surprise that I will oppose discharging Ms. Gupta's nomination from the committee. I think she should have to come back to the committee, as we have requested of Chairman Durbin, to explain these inconsistencies, if she has a good answer. So far, Chairman Durbin has declined to provide her and us that opportunity. But if we want to maintain any sense of legitimacy and respect for the confirmation process, we need to hold people accountable who come here and lie under oath. And for that and many other reasons, I will oppose the motion to discharge this nomination.

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, the new power dynamic in Washington has brought about a frenzy of proposed institutional changes by our friends across the aisle. The American people elected a Democratic President, that is true; they reduced the Democratic majority in the House; and elected a 50-50 Senate. In all of Congress, there are seven more Democrats than Republicans. That is all--7 out of 535 Members. Despite these tight margins, our friends on the other side have tried to characterize this new power dynamic as a mandate, and they have floated a tsunami of rule changes to go along with it. First came the push to eliminate the filibuster. Just a few years ago, the idea of such a radical change terrified our Democratic colleagues. We certainly didn't do it when we were in a position to do it, notwithstanding the encouragement of President Trump. When Republicans held control of the Senate, the House, and the White House, as our Democratic colleagues do now, our friends on the other side of the aisle feared the filibuster would come tumbling down. They were so concerned, in fact, that 33 of our colleagues signed on to a letter insisting that the filibuster be preserved. Leader McConnell agreed. He never wavered to pressure from anyone, even the President, to eliminate the filibuster. He has been around this Chamber and this Senate a long time, and he knows that what goes around comes around. As the leader correctly noted, Democrats didn't just spend the last 4 years supporting the filibuster, they took every advantage of the opportunity for the minority to stop legislation they disagreed with. They spent 4 years using it. Our Democratic colleagues employed the filibuster to kill quite a number of Republican bills on pandemic relief, government funding, pro- life legislation, police reform, and the list goes on and on. Despite the fact our friends on the other side of the aisle consistently praised and utilized the filibuster in recent years, now, after the election of 2020, they seem to have reversed course. Since the political tides have changed, so, too, have the views of many Senate Democrats. In recent months, one of our colleagues referred to the filibuster as making a mockery of American democracy. I happen to remember at John Lewis's funeral--the great civil rights icon--even former President Obama called it a ``relic of Jim Crow,'' arguably giving permission to Democrats to call the filibuster a racist obstacle to making progress in the country. Another Senator said that the filibuster had deep roots in racism, even though last summer Democrats used this tool to block an anti- lynching bill. The entire debate has ballooned beyond reason, and the past few months have been a game of ``will they or won't they'' when it comes to eliminating the filibuster. You know, the filibuster has very sound origins. It forces us to do what I think the American people would want us to do anyway, and that is to work together. It forces us to do that. And building consensus is hard, as we all know. Well, we now have confirmation that our Democratic colleagues do not have the votes. Last week, Senator Manchin of West Virginia took to the pages of the Washington Post and said he will not support eliminating or weakening the filibuster. He has been here long enough to know that what you can do in the majority will have consequences when you are in the minority, as you eventually will be if you are here long enough. I was appreciative of what Senator Manchin said in those pages. I am sure it wasn't easy. I am sure there is a lot of pressure on him to be expedient, to jam things through on a partisan basis, and I appreciate his willingness to stand up. I agree with the Senator from Arizona, who said: We don't have a rule problem. We have a people problem. We have a behavior problem. We need to restore bipartisan cooperation. There is no chance that will happen if everything in the Senate is jammed through along party lines. The filibuster is designed to protect our country from the continual change of who is in the majority and who is in the minority and to provide the American people a chance to plan their lives. If anything that can be done in one election can be undone in the next election, that is an invitation to chaos. Unfortunately, the list of proposed institutional changes doesn't end with the filibuster. Over the last few years, our friends on the other side of the aisle have also set their sights on the Supreme Court. We all remember the day a sitting Member of this body threatened two Supreme Court Justices by name. As the Justices were debating a case, the current majority leader said, on the steps of the Supreme Court: You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. Well, I think he realized the error in making that statement because he then followed up with--well, this isn't the point where he realized the error because he doubled down on it. He said: You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. Well, we know this wasn't an isolated incident. It is true that the majority leader tried to walk back his words later after he realized how intemperate and inappropriate they were when directed at two sitting members of the U.S. Supreme Court. We don't have to remember too far in the past to know how the words we speak here in Congress and as public officials--the impact they can have on other people's minds and perceptions, especially those who are not particularly stable in the first place. Well, several of our Democratic colleagues filed an amicus brief in which they threatened the Supreme Court with retribution unless they got the outcome that they wanted. Thank goodness our Founders designed the Federal Government with three separate but equal branches. Through this system of checks and balances, they sought to prevent any one branch of government from forcing its will on the other two. Standing up on the steps of the Supreme Court and issuing threats to the Justices that they must do what you want or else is certainly not consistent with the Founders' vision. Let me be clear. An independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our Constitution and our constitutional Republic--an independent judiciary. In the words of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, ``We should celebrate our strong and independent judiciary as a source of national unity and stability.'' But now, even this hallowed institution is being attacked by our Democratic colleagues unless they get the result they want. They are trying to intimidate the members of the Supreme Court. Then there is the most recent discussion--threat, really--about packing the Supreme Court with additional members. The push to pack the Supreme Court has been a mainstay of the far left for years, but it has now made its way into the Biden administration. Previously, throughout his campaign, President Biden refused to weigh in on this topic. He knew how explosive this was, this threat to pack the Court, to make it a political body, to eliminate its role as an independent judiciary. Well, he refused to weigh in on it during the campaign, and I have no doubt this was an important strategic decision. He realized how offensive that would be to the voters he hoped would vote for him in 2020. A poll last fall found that less than one-third of Americans support increasing the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. The President previously said he is ``not a fan of court packing.'' In fact, he called it a ``bonehead idea.'' He referred to President Roosevelt's proposal to pack the Court as a ``terrible, terrible mistake.'' But now President Biden has appeared to have embraced this ``bonehead idea'' and this ``terrible, terrible mistake'' that he condemned previously. The first step was last week when he created a Commission to examine adding members to the Supreme Court of the United States above the current nine. This decision and announcement came despite the fact that Justices on both sides appointed by Presidents on both sides of the aisle have affirmed the integrity of the Supreme Court with just nine members. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was an icon for the liberals on the Court and many people in America, said: ``Nine seems to be a good number.'' Just last week, Justice Breyer said that the Court's authority depends on ``a trust that the court is guided by legal principle, not politics.'' He said that these types of changes would erode the trust that the American people must have in the highest Court in the land. The American people simply won't have faith in an independent judiciary if one side is adding names to the roster so that they can game the outcome. They need to get involved in the legislative process if they want to make policy, not try to make politics through the judiciary, through the Supreme Court. So I would urge President Biden to heed his own words that he delivered with such conviction during his time on the Judiciary Committee when he said that President Roosevelt's decision ``put in question for an entire decade the independence of the most significant body . . . in this country.'' Well, unfortunately, the power grab doesn't stop there. The single biggest legislative goal of our friends on the other side of the aisle is an attempted takeover of State election laws. That is in spite of the fact that article I of the Constitution explicitly gives the States the power to regulate the ``times, places, and manner of holding elections.'' Yet this massive bill creates a one-size-fits-all mandate that every State must follow. It preempts State law, but I doubt it would ultimately be held up as constitutional because of the explicit guarantee that the States will regulate the time, manner, and place of holding elections. But there are also other changes that our Democratic colleagues-- where they seek to reap the benefit of a politicized Supreme Court and Federal Agencies. In this instance, the Federal Election Commission has six members, three from each party--intentionally designed to be a tie vote if they vote along party lines, to protect the Commission from partisan politics. We have learned that a fair and balanced Commission, which has been the standard for many years, isn't the gold standard for Democrats when they are in control of Congress and the White House. The election takeover bill introduced by our Democratic colleagues would remove one of the seats held by a Republican member of the Commission and turn the FEC into a partisan body. No more equal representation. No more consensus building. Why bother with that if you can steamroll an agenda with no opposition? Then there is the taxpayer funding of political campaigns. Instead of candidates working to gain the support, the vote, the activism and contributions from their preferred candidate, our Democratic colleagues want the taxpayer to pay for those campaigns. And it is not even a dollar-for-dollar match. The American taxpayer would pay $6 dollars for every $1 dollar that was donated to a candidate. That means if someone donates 200 bucks to their preferred candidate, the Federal Government would match that with up to $1,200. Those are taxpayer dollars. That is money coming out of your pocket whether you support that candidate's policies or not. On top of that, there are campaign vouchers proposed which would provide eligible voters with a $25 voucher to donate to the campaign of their choosing. I would rather this funding support the people and organizations that really need it: crime victims, unaccompanied children on our border, domestic violence, shelters. There are far more urgent needs for this money than our Democratic colleagues' campaign account. Of course, this effort comes at a time when the House Democrats are already trying to overturn the results of an Iowa congressional election in order to boost their own numbers. This confluence of institutional changes isn't about repairing a broken system; it is revolutionary. It is a revolution. You can't win every case before the Supreme Court? Well, just add some more liberal Justices. You can't build support for legislation? Well, eliminate the filibuster and the need to build consensus and to work together on a bipartisan basis. You can't win an election? Overturn the results and secure government funding or taxpayer funding for your candidates. And to cement these changes for a generation, better throw in a complete partisan takeover of our election laws. Our Democratic friends are taking the saying ``If you can't win the game, change the rules'' to a whole new level. This has been branded by propaganda, really, as a way to fix the system. Well, the system is not broken, and to the extent it needs reforms, it can be reformed at the State level, where the Constitution provides the authority for the States to run their elections. Well, I think it is important for the American people to understand exactly what is going on here. You can't understand what is going on here by just reading social media or watching cable news shows that reinforce your own bias. Unfortunately, our news these days seems to be like ships passing in the night, and people pick the channel that reaffirms their previous bias and doesn't challenge people with ideas that perhaps they are not familiar with or don't agree with, which is the way we ought to be dealing with each other. It is OK to disagree, but we ought to engage each other in a civil and respectful manner and to work those out in the crucible of our democracy known as the Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back on both sides on the Sherman nomination.

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

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, in all honesty, sometimes it is hard to figure out exactly what the policy goals are that the Biden administration is striving to achieve. Take the so-called COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law just last month. Despite the fact that every pandemic relief bill that became law last year received broad bipartisan support, this bill did not. In fact, not a single Republican voted for it. The Biden administration is preparing to rinse and repeat this strategy with a new misleading label, calling it infrastructure. But the reason why Republicans didn't vote for the COVID-19 relief bill, while we did for every single one last year, was because only about 10 percent of the bill was actually dedicated to the goal stated by the proponents. Only about 10 percent of the massive $1.9 trillion bill was related to the pandemic, and less than 1 percent was related to our vaccination efforts. As I said, now the administration is preparing a rinse-and-repeat strategy with a new misleading label: ``infrastructure.'' If one of the surveyed questions on ``Family Feud'' was, ``Name something that is considered infrastructure,'' I would bet the top two answers would be roads and bridges. The other popular answers would probably include: airports, railroads, ports, tunnels, and waterways. But our Democratic colleagues are broadening that definition in ways that really are not accurate. Just as they tried to brand things like environmental justice funding as ``pandemic relief,'' they are now getting very creative with the definition of ``infrastructure.'' In fact, the President's infrastructure plan has a lot in common with his COVID-19 relief plan. First of all is the pricetag. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates this plan would cost $2.65 trillion. That is trillion with a ``t.'' For reference, the last major infrastructure bill that became law in 2015 was widely described as the largest package in more than a decade. That overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation totaled just over $300 billion, one-ninth of the cost of this new plan. But there is another similarity between these two massive proposals, the long list of unrelated progressive or liberal policy priorities. Only about 5 percent of the spending in this colossal infrastructure plan is directed toward roads and bridges. So where does the rest of the money go? For starters, this proposal would provide $174 billion for electric vehicle chargers, far more money than would go toward the roads and bridges Americans drive on every day. There are roughly 280 million cars on the road, the vast majority of which are internal combustion engine driven. Yet rather than provide for the vast majority of travelers, this would favor $174 billion for electric vehicle chargers. This proposal includes a whopping $400 billion to support caregiving for elderly and disabled Americans. There is no question about the importance of quality care for these individuals, but this is no definition of infrastructure. So this is really another Trojan horse: calling it one thing, making it look like one thing, and doing something entirely unrelated and different. There is $25 billion for government childcare programs; $10 billion to create a Civilian Climate Corp--whatever that is. Then there is the massive funding for sustainable buildings and private homes. This proposal would provide $213 billion to build or retrofit more than 2 million affordable and sustainable places to live. This is really just the Green New Deal 2.0. And right on cue come the unrealistic targets to lower emissions. Rather than research and development or innovation, this relies on taxation and regulation, an unrealistic goal. This infrastructure plan calls for 100 percent of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2035. To be clear, we are nowhere close to that target now. And the effort to get there would have a devastating impact on States all across the country, including mine. Last year, renewables accounted for only 20 percent of our total electricity generation. In Texas, we generate more electricity from wind turbines than any other source in the country, but yet last year alone, renewables of all kinds--solar, wind, biomass, you name it-- accounted for less than 20 percent. Natural gas accounts for more than double that. We experienced what happens when these unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky goals are set. We had a 120-year weather event, the so-called polar vortex in Texas. It is a long, sustained period of subzero freezing that may be more common in Massachusetts than it is in Texas. As a matter of fact, like I said, it is a 120-year weather event. What we found out was the severe weather affected wind turbines, which effectively froze up snow- and ice-covered solar panels, and even natural gas went offline because the electric pumps that compress the natural gas to put it into the pipelines failed as well. About the only reliable fuel source during that period of time was nuclear power, which represents a fraction of our total energy needs. I am a proud supporter of renewable energy sources as well as a broader effort to reduce emissions. There is no question about this. Just last week, I joined folks from the North American Development Bank and their public and private partners to announce a new solar farm in Webb County, Laredo, TX. But there is a big difference between supporting renewables and what the Biden administration is trying to do with this unrealistic and pie-in-the-sky target. At the start of the pandemic, we got a small taste of the real-world impact of a shift from oil and gas and what that would look like. When the pandemic hit, the need for Texas's greatest natural resource plummeted. Demand dropped precipitously as people stayed home and quit driving. With fewer cars and planes on the road and in the sky, oil and gas producers were left with a high supply and low demand. And that is when the layoffs began. Last fall, a report by Deloitte found that between March and August of 2020, about 107,000 oil and gas workers were laid off. To be clear, this doesn't include the countless workers who had their pay cut or were temporarily furloughed. If the Biden administration enacts aggressive deadlines to eradicate our most prevalent and abundant energy sources, and the jobs they create, a lot of Texas energy workers and their families would be left high and dry. But the bad news doesn't stop there. The list of unrelated and downright damaging provisions in this bill is a long one. The big question with any legislation, especially something of this size, is, How are you going to pay for it? In the past, the vast majority of infrastructure funding has come from the highway trust fund, but for years it has faced serious shortfalls. To a serious degree, Texans have footed the bill for those shortfalls. In fact, we are one of the few States that receives less than it contributes to the highway trust fund, a so-called donor State. But rather than address the solvency of the trust fund and the inequitable burden put on donor States before the authorization expires at the end of September, the administration has completely ignored the issue altogether. The President's infrastructure plan doesn't even draw on the highway trust fund. So in order to pay for the sweeping liberal wish list, President Biden has proposed the largest set of tax hikes in more than half a century. By increasing the business tax rate from 21 to 28 percent, we would see an increase in revenue in the short term but serious long-term economic harm. The tax burden on American companies would be greater than that of our biggest trading partner, as well as our competitors, and would have far-reaching consequences on our competitiveness and our economy and jobs for hard-working American families After all, we know the cost of these tax hikes won't be reflected in lower earnings for CEOs. The brunt would be borne by consumers who pay higher prices, workers who earn lower wages, and, let's not forget, those whose jobs would disappear entirely. A study by the National Association of Manufacturers found this proposal would put 1 million people out of work in the United States in the next 2 years--a million people out of work. Just as we are beginning to come out of the pandemic, having been vaccinated and taking care for both our health and the health of others and now opening up our economy, this would be the reward for the American people: 1 million Americans out of work as a result of this misguided policy. This legislation is not about improving America's roads and bridges; it is another partisan wish list under the guise of something that has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. Despite what some people think, the American people, I believe, are smart enough to see through this bill for what it is, an unaffordable, unwanted liberal wish list. The Federal deficit is at its highest since World War II. This is not a time to go on another spending spree, using borrowed money from future generations. This is the time to craft smart policies that achieve the needs of our country without driving the next generation deeper and deeper into debt. There is no question that America's roads and bridges--our real infrastructure--need an investment from the Federal Government, but we can update that infrastructure for far less than $2.65 trillion. Last Congress, the Environment and Public Works Committee developed a truly bipartisan example of an infrastructure bill. It included provisions for rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges to improve road safety, protect the environment, and grow the economy. The bill was so popular, in fact, that it passed the committee unanimously. And what was the pricetag on that bill? Just over 10 percent of the cost of the President's current proposal. It would have authorized $287 billion over 5 years. That is $100 billion less than what Democrats proposed spending on caregiving alone. A bipartisan bill to rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges is possible. We have done it before, and we can do it again. But our Democratic colleagues are going to have trouble getting not only Republicans but many Members of their own party on board if they continue to push this sort of unrealistic, economy-harming sort of plan. I am sure it comes as no surprise that putting Americans out of work while driving up the deficit and hurting our global competitiveness are wildly unpopular. Even smoke and mirrors can't conceal the impact of this so-called infrastructure bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I was grateful for the opportunity, as I am sure we all were, to be back home for the last 2 weeks for the State work period and to talk to our constituents. Some of my conversations-- and I suspect I am not alone--some of these conversations were virtual. But most of us are glad to get back to whatever the next normal is and have more and more human interaction rather than the isolation and, frankly, some of the anxiety that comes along with being kept apart. We are social animals, we human beings, and we thrive on and we, I believe, need that kind of interaction. But so far this year, most of it has been virtual. I did have a chance to speak to the Texas Hispanic Chamber members and the members of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber as part of their annual legislative summit. Like many of the folks who do fly-ins at least once a year, we have had to forgo that, so this was a virtual meeting. But I did get a chance to hear from many of the members and particularly their board members on the importance of our response to the pandemic and the progress they have in turn been able to make through things like the Paycheck Protection Program. I also was able to join friends from Webb County--that is Laredo, TX--the North American Development Bank and their private partners, to announce a $216 million investment in a new solar farm, which they are very excited about. I was glad to be able to visit with a number of Texans in person, with all of the appropriate safety precautions we have all learned so well. I was able to kick off National Volunteer Month at the San Antonio Food Bank with a number of incredible nonprofits and people with big hearts who are volunteering even amidst the--hopefully the waning days of this pandemic, at the food bank. I hope Texans and folks all across the country will continue to find ways to support one another by volunteering with local nonprofits this month and into the future. I also was able to meet with venue owners and operators at Antone's in Austin, which is the live music capital of the world, on the day before applications opened for the U.S. Small Business Administration shuttered venue operators grant. This grant program was established through the Save Our Stages Act, which Senator Klobuchar and I introduced and which was signed into law as part of the December relief bill. These small venues were excluded from the Paycheck Protection Program and, of course, were among the first to close and will be among the last to open. But what we did in the Save Our Stages Act will go a long way to ensure that the marquees at our most beloved live entertainment venues can shine bright once again, and I am eager for the funds to reach Texas venues. Then, in Dallas, I joined my friend Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson to announce bipartisan legislation we are introducing in response to the deadly winter storm that hit Texas last February. This legislation will help build resilience in our electrical infrastructure throughout the country and will help ensure we are better prepared for whatever extreme weather Mother Nature sends our way. It was great, as I said, to visit with folks in person again, and I am glad to see a gradual return to our new normal, as more and more Americans are vaccinated. Even though the issues I was discussing throughout my State were different, one common theme that I brought up everywhere I went was to continue to encourage Texans to get vaccinated. So far, 9 million of us have received at least 1 dose of the vaccine, and 5.6 million Texans are fully vaccinated. Obviously we are not out of the woods yet, but Americans have every reason to be optimistic about the headway made in the fight against COVID-19.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as we all know, over the last year, COVID-19 has taken center stage as the No. 1 public health crisis facing our Nation. No community has been spared from the devastation caused by this virus, which has claimed more than 540,000 American lives. But beneath the surface, the problems we were facing before the pandemic still exist, and, in many cases, they are getting worse. A year of stress, isolation, and loss has taken a serious toll on America's mental health and has led to increasing rates of anxiety and depression. These same factors have led to an increase in domestic violence as families have spent more time at home, often while battling the stress of job losses, financial difficulties, and virtual learning. And, of course, there is the opioid epidemic, which continues to destroy communities across our country. In 2019, there were more than 70,000 overdose deaths in America-- 70,000. We are still waiting on the complete figures for 2020, but preliminary data shows that things are trending in the wrong direction. From June 2019 to May of 2020, more than 81,000 Americans have died from overdoses. We know a significant portion of those deaths involve heroin--roughly 20 percent of those who overdosed in 2019. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency's ``National Drug Threat Assessment,'' the vast majority of that heroin comes from Mexico, a staggering 92 percent. As we have discussed the crisis at the border, I have talked about ways the surge of unaccompanied children affects Customs and Border Protection's ability to carry out its other missions, including stopping the flow of these illegal drugs. Time spent processing and caring for children means less time on the frontlines catching or deterring the cartels from moving their poison across the border into the United States. A Bloomberg report last year brought another aspect of this epidemic to light: the fact that chemicals made in the United States by U.S. companies were key ingredients in the manufacturing of heroin in Mexico. One of those companies is Avantor, a Fortune 500 company that supplies chemicals and lab materials and services across a number of industries. Avantor produces millions of products, including everything from medical masks to high-quality chemicals for pharmaceuticals, to kits for science labs in schools. But the focus here is on one particular chemical--acetic anhydride. This is an 18-liter jug of acetic anhydride, and you can see Avantor's name on the label. Avantor sells this through a subsidiary known as J.T. Baker into Mexico. Now, there are legitimate uses for acetic anhydride. It is used to make cigarette filters and chemicals used for photographic films, but this wasn't a photo taken in a chemical lab or a manufacturing plant here in the United States. This was taken by a Bloomberg reporter in Mexico who was able to purchase this chemical online, no questions asked. This should have never happened. Why? Because acetic anhydride is a highly regulated chemical, at least in the United States and, actually, around the world. Some companies even bar the importation of acetic anhydride because of its use in manufacturing illegal drugs. But the reason it is regulated is it is a precursor in the production of heroin. That is why many countries ban the importation outright. Without this chemical, it is virtually impossible to transform opium from a poppy seed into the more lethal drug of heroin. Acetic anhydride, as I said, is one of the most tightly controlled chemicals worldwide and has been for some time. The International Narcotics Control Board has been sounding the alarm on this dangerous chemical since the 2000s. In fact, its annual report has described horrific examples of the dangerous precursor chemical being diverted from legitimate uses to illegitimate uses, like making heroin. But the fact is, Mexico did not sign on to the International Narcotics Board protocol for this dangerous chemical until 2018, and even then, the enforcement, oversight, and control of this precursor was lax, at best. Even now, given the controls the cartels exert over large swaths of Mexico, I have no confidence that any controls on this chemical are effective in stopping illicit uses in that country. The Bloomberg investigation brought to light how easy it was for the cartels to get hold of this chemical. The reporters were able to purchase this 18-liter jug online or at a medical supply store. It didn't take any special requirements. You can imagine how easy it was for the cartels to get their hands on this chemical. While the controls, oversight, and enforcement of this chemical are much tighter in the United States and have been for years, it presents a constant challenge when Mexico does not have the same standards and enforcement. It presents an additional hurdle for the safety of our communities when U.S. companies, like Avantor, avail themselves of foreign subsidiaries to create and manufacture the precursor chemical in a cartel's own backyard, thereby facilitating the manufacture and sale of the deadly drug known as heroin. Of course, the winners in all of this are the cartels, in addition to their criminal network of smugglers, who move the drug across our border. The losers are our communities here in the United States and our loved ones who have been tragically affected by the opioid epidemic. This is an open-air drug lab in Sinaloa State, the home of El Chapo's drug empire. Cartels can use this single jug of 18 liters of chemical to make heroin in this drug lab that is concealed in a rural part of Mexico. They can make out of that one jug about 80 pounds, or 90,000 hits, of heroin out of one jug. Of course, one hit is enough to destroy a life, but think of the pain that one 18-liter jug can inflict on an entire community, and Avantor knows that these jugs in this size can be easily concealed in something like the trunk of a car. One container of this chemical costs $324. The street value of the heroin that it will yield is at least $3.6 million. One jug at $324 can produce $3.6 million worth of street value in heroin. If this doesn't make your blood boil, you are not paying attention. After all, it is simply impossible to believe that Avantor, which is a Fortune 500 company that is publicly traded here in America, was selling large quantities of this chemical--banned in many countries of the world because of its use in illegal drug manufacturing--and had no idea that it was being used for illicit purposes in Mexico. I don't think anybody would believe they didn't know. Bloomberg reports that this has been going on for at least the last 10 years, when photos like this surfaced of the J.T. Baker line of product showing up in drug busts by the Mexican authorities. Unfortunately, the bad news doesn't stop there. The nominee for the third highest ranking position at the Department of Justice has profited to the tune of millions of dollars from Avantor stock. Vanita Gupta has been nominated to serve as the Associate Attorney General, and she is a very large shareholder in this publicly traded company. She owns millions of dollars of Avantor stock, parked in her own accounts and in the various trusts she has identified in her financial disclosures. This isn't just a blind investment in a mutual fund; this is the family business. Ms. Gupta's father is Avantor's chairman of the board. Following Ms. Gupta's confirmation hearing in the Judiciary Committee, Senators submitted questions for the record. One question was submitted by Senator Grassley, the ranking member. He asked Ms. Gupta if she were aware that Avantor was producing and selling chemical precursors used in the illegal heroin trade in Mexico. She said: I am aware of the allegations. The next question from Senator Grassley was about her financial holdings. Since she owns upwards of $55 million in Avantor stock, he asked if she had profited financially from this chemical trade of acetic anhydride by Avantor in Mexico. Ms. Gupta said: As a shareholder with no role in Avantor, I am not able to say whether and how much I have profited from the various parts of Avantor's business. I generally believe witnesses who testify under oath at Judiciary Committee hearings if there is no reason not to believe them, but it pains me to say that Ms. Gupta had already established a clear pattern of deception or of flat-out lying during her confirmation process. Ms. Gupta wrote an op-ed piece in the HuffPost on November 4, 2012. At that time, she said that States should decriminalize the possession of all drugs--not just marijuana but all drugs--for personal use. In the article, she said: States should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs, particularly marijuana, and for small amounts of other drugs. That is a quotation. You can see that here. That would include decriminalizing fentanyl, methamphetamine, and other highly addictive, deadly drugs, including, of course, heroin. Well, that wasn't her answer at her confirmation hearing. When asked whether she advocates for the decriminalization of all drugs, she didn't mince words. She said: No, Senator. I do not. Now, I understand that it is natural for people to change their minds, especially in light of new information or new experiences. In Ms. Gupta's case, she noted that her experience at the Department of Justice and with addiction in her own family had led her to evolve her position on these issues. Yet, in responding to Senator Grassley's written questions, she wrote: I have never advocated for the decriminalization of all drugs, and I do not support the decriminalization of all drugs. That is demonstrably false. It is not true. She obviously held the view and felt so strongly about it at the time that she penned an op-ed piece in a national publication to advocate for the decriminalization of all drugs. When a person has been nominated for a leadership position at the Department of Justice, that person has a duty to be honest and forthright. If you have learned any new information and have changed your mind, that is fine, but you can't flat-out mislead about not having held beliefs that you clearly held in the past, especially when those beliefs could interfere with your ability to do the very job for which you have been nominated. It is not just with decriminalization that Ms. Gupta has misled the Judiciary Committee. As to qualified immunity, defunding the police, and the death penalty, Ms. Gupta has offered misleading statements on each of these issues. Policy differences, I can accept, but a lack of candor is disqualifying, especially for th Office of the Associate Attorney General. So when Ms. Gupta said she was unaware that Avantor was profiting or that she was profiting from the illicit manufacturing of heroin in Mexico, I do not find that credible. It is just another example of saying whatever you need to say to get confirmed by the Senate. The Department of Justice is the highest law enforcement Agency in the country, and Ms. Gupta has been nominated to serve as third in command. If confirmed, she will oversee the Civil Division, which will make major decisions about who will be investigated, who will be charged, and who will face punishment. Some of those potential targets include opioid companies, drug manufacturers, or perhaps even companies that are diverting precursor chemicals to the cartels. If you look at the work at the moment of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, you will see a number of civil actions already related to the diversion of opioids and companies involved in illegal schemes. What does this say about her ability to supervise those kinds of cases? The Department requires professional detachment from even the appearance of impropriety, and this conflict of interest of Ms. Gupta's goes far beyond simple appearance. Ms. Gupta has financially benefited from the sale of this chemical to cartels in Mexico. She has financially benefited whether she knew it at the time or not, but she won't even admit it. As a result, any case that has a nexus to drugs brought by the Department of Justice while she is at the helm will have a giant cloud cast over it. Finally, what I find most troubling, in addition to her lack of candor, is that Ms. Gupta has shown absolutely no remorse for the harm done by Avantor in facilitating the manufacture and sale of heroin here in the United States. I estimate that, in the last 10 years, more than 100,000 Americans have died of drug overdoses associated with heroin. So I cannot support the nomination of Ms. Gupta to serve as Associate Attorney General, and I urge all of my colleagues to oppose her nomination as well.

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, I am an unabashed optimist. I am a glass- half-full not a glass-half-empty kind of guy, and I tell my staff that I am like the little boy who goes down on Christmas morning and looks under the Christmas tree and finds a pile of manure and wonders where my pony is. That is how much of an optimist I am. So I am optimistic about our progress made in the war against COVID- 19 after this long year that we have all endured. So far, a quarter of Americans over the age of 18 have received at least one dose of the vaccine. More than two-thirds of people over 65 have gotten their first shot. In my State, they have recently said everybody 50 and up can get a shot. Now, very soon, any adult person over the age of 16 will be eligible to get the vaccine. That translates into good news across the board. New cases, deaths, and hospitalizations are all declining. Over the last week, the 7-day positivity rate in Texas dropped to the lowest point since last May. While we continue to follow the public health guidelines to slow the spread of the virus, it is clear we are moving closer and closer to an eventual end of this pandemic, and there are a million reasons to be optimistic. Despite the narrative pushed by some, all of this hope isn't the result of just the last couple of months, and it certainly is not the product of the partisan bill that was passed just 2 weeks ago. These efforts have been underway for more than a year now, and we owe a great deal of credit to Operation Warp Speed, the initiative set up by the Trump administration to accelerate the development of vaccines, treatments, and therapeutics. Last summer, when President Trump speculated that we would have an effective vaccine by the end of the year, he received some serious blowback. One media outlet published a fact check saying it would require nothing short of a ``medical miracle.'' Well, thanks to the leadership of the previous administration, thanks to the great scientists, pharmaceutical companies, and others, that so-called miracle has come true not just once but twice. Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines received emergency authorization last year, and Johnson & Johnson's vaccine was authorized last month. Rather than setting ambitious goals to bring an end to the pandemic, the Biden administration has embraced a different approach. An Associated Press headline in January evaluated the situation pretty well when it said that Biden's early approach is to ``underpromise'' and ``overdeliver.'' Well, in December, President-Elect Biden announced his administration's vaccine goal as 100 million shots in the first hundred days. That announcement came about a week before the first doses of the vaccine were distributed, before we had a real-world test of the processes that had been in the planning stages for months. But it quickly became obvious that we were on a pace to meet that goal before President Biden even took the oath of office on January 20. The week of the inauguration, we averaged 1 million shots a day. On January 20, 1.5 million Americans received the vaccine. One physician and public health expert described the President's goal as a ``disappointingly low bar.'' To no one's surprise, the administration met that goal well ahead of the deadline. Last week, the President claimed a victory for hitting 100 million vaccines in 58 days. Well, so did he follow up with a new goal, a truly ambitious one that would get us shots in arms even faster? Did he set up a new benchmark to encourage States to make their vaccination efforts more efficient and effective? Well, not yet. Maybe he will. Maybe he will announce a new goal this week. For the sake of our country, I hope he sets the bar high. Given the fact that we are now vaccinating about 2.5 million Americans per day--a staggering number, really--it is time for the administration to take a truly bold step. The goal here isn't to set a target you are almost certain to meet. After all, you didn't see the previous administration set a target of a successful vaccine by the summer of 2021, which is what many experts believed at the time. Unfortunately, the underpromise, overdeliver strategy doesn't end with vaccinations. Just look at the President's latest comments about small outdoor gatherings. In the same speech where he tried to take a victory lap for the ``disappointingly low bar'' set for vaccinations, he made a rather confusing promise to the American people. He said: If we keep our guard up, stick together, and stick with the science, we can look forward to a Fourth of July that feels a little bit more normal with small groups able to gather for cookouts in backyards. Well, that was a little bit of a head-scratcher, when President Biden said that he anticipated that everybody who wanted the vaccine could get it by May, and now he is talking about having outdoor gatherings on the Fourth of July. I can tell you, these small outdoor gatherings have been a part of many Texans' routines for almost all year now. Families and friends have spent time in driveways, backyards, open-air spaces, parks. They follow the public health guidelines to keep themselves and their loved ones safe while managing some sense of normalcy The Centers for Disease Control has said it is safe for fully vaccinated individuals to gather not just outdoors but indoors as well. But based on the President's remarks last week, he is trying to frame these gatherings as a reward if things go well over the next few months. If you do everything right, then you might be able to hang out with your family in the backyard in 3 months. Well, the administration's own Centers for Disease Control has already told us that these gatherings are safe. Your current public health guidelines can't also double as a goal for 3\1/2\ months from now. Then there is another big inconsistency between what the experts are telling us and what the administration is doing, and that has to do with reopening schools. Some children have now hit the anniversary mark of virtual learning. Studies have shown consistently that this is having a huge negative impact on America's kids academically, mentally, socially, and emotionally. We need our schools to reopen, and, of course, we need that to happen safely, which they can. Back in December, then President-Elect Biden seemed to share that goal. He promised to safely reopen the majority of schools within his first hundred days in the White House, another hundred-day goal. The experts tell us it is not only possible, but it has already been done across the country. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a report in January that said: There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission. In short, the schools are not a breeding ground for COVID-19, and as long as proper precautions are taken, schools can reopen safely. In fact, it has already happened across most of Texas. Nearly two-thirds of Texas schools are fully in-person, and just 3 percent of districts are still fully remote. Two-thirds are fully reopened, and 3 percent are fully remote. Unfortunately, in this case, the science is at odds with a key supporter of our Democratic colleagues, and that is the teachers unions. For months, teachers unions have fought a safe return to in- person instruction even though the experts and real-world evidence tell us that it is safe. It has gone so far that they have now gotten into some pretty sticky situations. A leaked post from a private Facebook group for the Los Angeles teachers union warned teachers not to post pictures of their spring break photos because it makes it difficult to argue that it is unsafe to return to school. Well, it is tough to tell parents that it is not safe for their kids to go to school and then turn around and tell teachers it is fine to go on vacation; just don't post pictures. Trusting science and listening to the experts means doing so all the time, not just when it is convenient or politically expedient. We are seeing progress every day in our fight against COVID-19. That is the light at the end of the tunnel that is getting bigger and brighter, and the question is not if we get there but when. How quickly can we get more vaccines into arms? When will our children--all our children--return safely to the classroom? How long until families can hug one another without fear of spreading the virus to someone they love? We all know this is a community effort. It is a team effort. It is a personal responsibility effort. Each of us has a role to play in stopping the spread of the virus. But leadership matters too. The goals and benchmarks set by the administration will determine how quickly all of these things can happen. Now is not the time to walk back goals, set low bars, or bow to unions and political supporters. The administration needs to set clear metrics and targets for how we reopen and find our new normal, and these goals should be based on the science and the advice of the experts--nothing less. So we are getting close to safely crossing the finish line, and we shouldn't let politics or any other consideration slow us down. I yield the floor. I would 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, from El Paso to Brownsville, my home State shares a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. If you were daring enough to attempt to walk that entire stretch, you would trek through deserts, mountains, big cities, small towns, and maybe even stick your big toe in the Rio Grande. You get to know folks who are proud of the strong bonds that our country has with our southern neighbor, including many who have relatives in both countries. You would meet entrepreneurs whose businesses depend on legitimate trade and travel between our countries. You would talk with local, State, and Federal law enforcement officials who go above and beyond the call to keep our communities safe. And I have no doubt that along the way, you could enjoy some great Tex-Mex, and depending on the season, you would find the best grapefruit you have ever eaten in the Rio Grande Valley. Our Texas-Mexico southern border is a beautiful, vibrant region with a rich sense of community that you can't find in any other part of the country. I believe it is truly unique. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have had the opportunity to spend a lot of time in our border communities and work with their incredible leaders: mayors, county judges, sheriffs, school superintendents, NGOs--nongovernmental organizations--and countless others. Well, I am sure you have heard the song ``God Bless Texas.'' It is true, I believe, and the folks I have come to call friends along the border are certainly doing the Lord's work. These men and women work around the clock to create safe communities and thriving economies, something that has been especially tough during the hand they have been dealt this last year with the pandemic. But they have lived through a pandemic, hurricanes, droughts, a winter storm that presented subzero freezing temperatures for a week. All have hit my State in the last 12 months. Folks in these communities, as they have throughout the country, have lost friends and loved ones. They have lost jobs. They have lost businesses and opportunities and so much more. Now they are trying to deal with another crisis, one they had no hand in creating and should not be responsible for managing alone. Unfortunately, the administration continues to play a high-stakes version of the game Taboo as they try to find a word--any word--but ``crisis'' to refer to what is happening along the southern border. President Biden himself has called it a ``humanitarian challenge.'' Secretary Mayorkas prefers the term ``situation.'' And the President's Chief of Staff referred to it as a ``mess.'' The problem here isn't the choice of the word you use to describe it but the implication of downplaying the seriousness of this migration surge. In an attempt to lessen the impact of this dramatic increase in illegal migration, the administration has revoked policies that were helping deter such an influx. It failed to rapidly provide the resources needed to respond to the crisis once it revoked the previous policies, and now the border communities in my State along that 1,200- mile common border with Mexico are expected to pick up the slack. Regardless of how you want to brand what is happening, here are the facts. Last month, Customs and Border Protection encountered more than 100,000 individuals along our border last month alone--100,000. That is the highest number since 2006. More than 9,000 of these 100,000 people were children, unaccompanied children, separated when their parents sent them, along with human smugglers, criminal organizations, to make their dangerous trek from Mexico or Central America or somewhere else into the United States. Another 19,000 are what are euphemistically called family units, usually 1 parent and 1 or more children. Now, we know that this journey to our borders isn't safe or easy, and you can imagine that is especially true fo unaccompanied children. Many arrive at our border in critical health, having endured days and weeks or even months of exposure on the road. I have heard horrific stories of physical and sexual abuse that occur in the hands of these criminal organizations who move migrants from place A to place B. But they are nothing more than cartels, human smugglers, criminals who care nothing about the individuals whom they are ferrying from their point A to point B. All they care about is the money that they make, and they make a lot of money. By law, children cannot be in the custody of Customs and Border Protection for more than 72 hours. Within that window, they are required by law to be transferred to the custody and care of the Department of Health and Human Services. But right now, the system is so overwhelmed that thousands of children have been in custody beyond the legal limit, including hundreds who have been held for more than 10 days in border detention facilities. Axios has recently released some pictures taken inside, I believe, the Donna detention facility showing children basically stacked end to end, trying to stay warm, trying to sleep because the Border Patrol facilities are simply overwhelmed. The situation has grown so dire, the administration has sent the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help, and now they have set up a new influx care facility in Dallas and Midland to provide for these children. The Midland facility has experienced so many issues that no additional migrant teens are being sent there. In the first few days of operation, more than 10 percent of the population housed there tested positive for COVID-19, and at least one child has been hospitalized. One government official described the process of setting up the facility as ``building a plane as it's taking off.'' There is simply no reason the administration should have been caught flat-footed by this surge of illegal migration. After all, the President campaigned on promises of policies that were sure to lead to this very situation. When you remove the policies that deter illegal border crossings, what do you expect? We know that the spring months are typically the busiest for migration because mild temperatures make the journey a little less dangerous and folks want to come to the United States for summer work. We know the cartels and criminal organizations are very knowledgeable about our immigration laws. They know them perhaps better than most Americans do, and they know how to navigate them. We know a flawed court ruling on the Flores settlement agreement means even more children will come across our border because now families are subject to the same requirements as unaccompanied children. We know we have an immigration court backlog that is roughly 1.3 million cases deep, and the average time for a case to be presented in court is now 2\1/2\ years. Nevertheless, the Biden administration, by revoking the previous policies without having a plan to replace them, has created a perfect storm that anyone could have told them would end up in this situation. We have experienced migration surges in the past but never of this magnitude. In the midst of a pandemic, Secretary Mayorkas has said that we are on track to see the highest number of border crossings in 20 years and the administration needs to take action now to keep things from getting any worse. As migrants continue to make their way to our southern border in record numbers, law enforcement, local officials, and nongovernmental organizations, notwithstanding their best efforts, are not equipped to manage the influx, certainly not in these numbers. They don't have the facilities. They don't have the policies, the funding, or the resources to manage the crisis in a fair, efficient, and humane way. That needs to change. For folks who are not from a border State or haven't spent much time at the border, it is difficult to understand just how complex the situation is. They may have learned what they think they know about the border from movies or novels, or they may have read news articles and assume border communities are dangerous or lawless places. That assumption could not be farther from the truth. But it is true that our border communities are being asked to carry more than their fair share of the weight during this crisis, when the past year has already been challenging enough with the pandemic. Like cities across the country, border communities have had to cover a range of expenses created by the pandemic, but unlike those other communities, they now have the added economic struggle created by limits on nonessential border travel. Prepandemic, folks from Mexico could travel across the border to shop, to eat at restaurants, and visit family members. These were huge drivers of the economy along our entire border region. But the pause on legitimate, nonessential travel by title 42 has created a serious economic strain on these communities, and leaders are struggling to understand the disconnect between the Biden administration's two very different approaches. At a recent roundtable my friend Congressman Henry Cuellar and I hosted in Laredo, someone said: I don't understand how you can catch and release the migrants and not let our neighbors across the border come over and spend money in our communities to help bolster our economy. This confluence of crises is a one-two punch for our border communities, and it is unfair they are expected to carry the burden of this crisis. That is the Federal Government's responsibility. This Friday, my colleague Senator Cruz and I will welcome a number of our colleagues to the Rio Grande Valley, where they can hear and see about these challenges firsthand. I welcome any Member of the Senate or the Congress to join me at the border at a time of their choosing. I know I have benefited from the feedback and advice from the experts on the ground who are dealing with this crisis firsthand, and I am glad to bring some of my Senate colleagues on Friday along for a visit at this critical moment. Hopefully that will help us to find a way, along with the administration in a bipartisan way, to reduce some of the pull factors that incentivize people to come and navigate our system. You are never going to deal with the fact that people want a better life or are fleeing violence. We all get that. We understand why, as human beings, people would want to leave that, but we also know that the cartels are getting rich off of this business model, and certainly they are incentivized to encourage as many people as possible to come and pay their extortionate fees in the process. But the combination of those at this point--both the push factors and the pull factors, especially with the Biden administration putting a green light on our border and basically saying ``All comers are welcome to enter the country''--is creating an unreasonable expectation about what people are going to encounter, as well as overwhelming the capacity of our Border Patrol, Health and Human Services, and the Office of Refugee Relocation to be able to deal with them. We know that the incentives involved in a catch-and-release system, in which people are asked to return in perhaps months, maybe years, for a future court date to consider their asylum claims, are nothing but an invitation for them to not appear and simply melt into the great American landscape and, again, continue to incentivize people to come because they know they can beat the system. They certainly can game the system, and, unfortunately, too often people beat the system, creating the situation we find now at the southern border. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, whether the administration wants to call it a challenge or a mess--or pick your word--a calculated word choice does not change the magnitude of what is currently happening on our southern border. Hundreds of unaccompanied children are being detained on a daily basis, completely overwhelming the capacity of the Border Patrol and Health and Human Services to deal with it--witness the two new centers opened up in Midland, TX, in West Texas, and a new one at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas that will house approximately 300,000 young men. At one point, there were more than 4,200 children in custody, nearly 3,000 of them held beyond the 72-hour time limit set by the Flores Settlement. For comparison, there were about 2,600 children in custody at any given time during the peak in 2019, so 2,600 now to 4,200. In many cases, these children don't make the dangerous journey north with their parents but in the care of human smugglers--coyotes, as they are called. Parents pay these smugglers thousands of dollars to bring their children to the United States. In some cases, along that long, treacherous journey, whether it is from Central America or from Mexico or anywhere else--because these children are not just limited to Mexico and Central America--these children are kidnapped by the smugglers on their way to the border because they know having a child in their custody will give them preferential treatment and allow them to stay in the country. Sadly, we know that, too often, children are mistreated, abused, or even sexually assaulted on the way to the United States. There is a lot of work that has to be done from the moment the Border Patrol first encounters these children until they are transferred into the custody of Health and Human Services, but the Border Patrol lacks the physical space or the personnel or the resources to provide this number of children with the care and support they need and also to carry out their duties, especially during a deadly pandemic. On Monday, I spoke with the Border Patrol sector chiefs and the Office of Field Operations Directors from across Texas. We talked about the surge in unaccompanied children and the cascading consequences this crisis has had on our other border missions. As Border Patrol officers encounter, transport, and care for these children, they are often invariably diverted from their job securing the border, and so security gaps are left along the rest of the border. This is not an accident. This is really part of the strategy that the human smugglers and drug smugglers have: flood the zone, preoccupy the Border Patrol taking care of children, leaving gaps that can then be exploited, either by more human smugglers or by drug smugglers. We all know that large amounts of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and the like come across our southern border. Ninety-two percent, according to the DEA, of all the heroin in the United States comes from Mexico. So these smugglers and their really criminal organizations that ply in different commodities and different things, they flood the system to distract the Border Patrol and then exploit the vulnerabilities to bring people, drugs, weapons, and money across. One of the Border Patrol chiefs told me that Customs and Border Protection needs to be able to identify and classify the migrants they meet, and it is being strained, which is impacting national security. For example, last Friday when I was in Carrizo Springs and in Laredo with my friend Henry Cuellar, a Democrat representing a border district in Texas along the Rio Grande, the sector chief told us that, just so far this year, migrants from 54 different countries were detained coming across the border in the Del Rio Sector. Now, I think that sort of gives you a better idea that this is not just a localized phenomenon; these are criminal networks with really connections all around the world. If you want to come from Mexico, for example, it will cost you a few thousand bucks. If you want to come from Central America, you pay a little bit more of a premium. If you want to come from Europe or a Middle East country, it will cost you even more. But it is only a matter of money because that is the only thing that these smugglers and these criminal organizations care about. But then people from 54 different countries, some of which are countries of special interest to the United States for national security purposes--54 countries represented just so far this year in one sector, and I am sure the other Border Patrol sectors have similar stories. What is more, since October, the Border Patrol has encountered more than 4,000 criminal aliens, nearly double the amount from the previous fiscal year in less than half the time. In order to qualify as a criminal alien, you have committed significant crimes, like assault, battery, domestic violence, sexual offenses, even manslaughter and homicide. Of course, these are just the ones we know about and who were actually detained. Many more--we don't know how many more, but many more get through unobstructed across the border. While Border Patrol is overwhelmed by the sheer number of people crossing our border, including the alarming number of children sent by themselves, the Border Patrol isn't able to properly surveil or apprehend potentially dangerous individuals and substances. We have experienced migration surges in the past, most recently in 2014 when President Obama called it a humanitarian crisis and then again in 2019. We know how dangerous the journey to our border is for migrants, especially children. We know that spring and summer are often the busiest time periods. In other words, what we are seeing now is just a foreshadowing of what we expect to see in the coming weeks and months. We also know that these criminal organizations pay attention to what our leaders are saying here in the United States. Congressman Cuellar and I, when we were in Carrizo Springs, were able to talk to a number of young men, teenagers, and asked how they heard about the border and their ability to get across. They said, well, they saw it on TV or heard from family members here in the United States or saw it on social media that now is the time to come, with a new administration that is not committed to border security, and so this was the time to make their run across the border. But these organizations do pay attention, and unfortunately the actions of the Biden administration not only contributed to another surge this year, but they also made likely that it would be bigger than any other in recent memory. The President campaigned on policies that would lead to this very outcome. After all, when you send a message that migrants can come to the United States even with the flimsiest asylum claims and stay for years until they are resolved and don't even really have to show up for their court hearing because of the backlog of 1.2 million cases in our immigration courts, what do we expect to happen? What the Border Patrol tells me is that this is a combination of push factors and pull factors. The push factors we are familiar with. Who wouldn't want to come to the United States for a better life? Who wouldn't want to avoid the violence and crime associated with some of the gang activity in Central America? We all understand that. But the pull factors are the sense that you can actually successfully get into the United States through illegal means or by making a false asylum claim and then overloading the system and basically navigate your way into the United States without any negative consequences. I believe we need to set up a system that honors and respects all legitimate asylum claims, but this isn't it. We need to find a way to move the children and other people claiming asylum to the head of the line so they can present their claims to an immigration judge. But, as you can imagine, only about 10 to 12 percent of the asylum claims are actually granted, and if your only concern is making it into the United States, maybe you don't want to go in front of an immigration judge. But then again, those who don't, the immigration judge, when their appointed court date comes, issues a default order of deportation. So if you had a valid asylum claim that would have been granted by a judge, you have lost that by virtue of your nonappearance at your hearing. Well, Secretary Mayorkas said we are on track to see the highest number of border crossings in almost 20 years, and I can't say that I am surprised. There is simply no way to rewind time and prevent this crisis from happening, but it is absolutely urgent first that the administration acknowledge it and then work with Congress to address it. I would encourage the President to follow his own advice, which is to listen to the experts. The experts I listen to when I travel to the border are Border Patrol, Health and Human Services, and the Office of Refugee Relocation. Those are the three Federal Government Agencies that deal with this crisis. I would be glad to welcome him to my State and introduce him to the dedicated men and women along the border who provide valuable services but who simply are overwhelmed and undersourced. The communities in which they live along the border are beautiful, vibrant communities with outstanding local leaders, but they also feel like they have been abandoned by the Federal Government. They are the ones who are disproportionately impacted when you see a flood of humanity come through their borders, and they try their best, through nongovernmental organizations or just out of simple human mercy and sympathy for the plight of these migrants, to help them any way they can. But they, too, are overwhelmed. They are doing everything they can to manage the crisis, which they had no hand in creating, and they should not be expected to manage it without help from the Federal Government that is, indeed, responsible for our border. Law enforcement, mayors, county judges, nongovernmental organizations--I have a long list of folks that I would be happy to share with the administration if they would be willing to listen. Indeed, one of the most significant things I think that President Biden could do, like he did after the polar vortex, the big freeze we had in Texas, the 120-year weather event--he was good enough to come to our State and talk to the first responders. I think he would benefit greatly if he made another trip on Air Force One down to the border so he could do what I have had the opportunity to do, and that is to talk to the experts and the people on the ground who understand this crisis and who have some, I think, very constructive ideas about how to deal with it.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, on another matter, nearly 20 years ago, I took my first trip to Israel. I had a good stroke of fortune: I met a brilliant, hilarious, opinionated, larger-than-life man named Roger Sofer. Roger was simply unlike anyone I had ever met before or anyone I have met since. He could captivate a room with anything from a serious discussion of national security and Israel-U.S. policies, to stories from his childhood, to jokes that, well, probably shouldn't be repeated here on the Senate floor. Roger cared deeply about his family, his Jewish faith, and the many friends he earned throughout his life. I consider myself fortunate to be among those friends, and I would like just to share a few words about my friend Roger, who passed away last week. As the old saying goes in my State, Roger wasn't born in Texas, but he got there as fast as he could. The incredible story of his life began in Queens, NY. It led him to the University of Tampa on a baseball scholarship as a left-handed pitcher and then to Fort Dix with the Army. He then went back to Florida, where he worked as a cabdriver, home to New York as a sales representative, and then finally to Houston, TX, where he lived when he and I met. Clearly, young Roger was an enterprising guy. He understood the value of hard work, and even more importantly, he learned about the value of relationships. Roger and his friend Dan Steiner started their own financial planning and insurance firm and quickly found success. Roger truly cared about everyone he worked with--his clients, his employees, and their families. That personal attention translated into a thriving business and a lot of rewards in recognition to go along with it. But Roger never let work consume his entire life or take away from the people and causes he cared most about. Roger grew up in a religious home and inherited a deep appreciation of his Jewish faith. His father Hyman was his hero and instilled in him a love of our country, as well as a love of Israel. Hyman would say, ``Don't worry about business, Roger, because if there's no Israel, there will be no business.'' That thought stuck. Throughout his life, Roger fought to secure a brighter future for our friends and allies in Israel. In the 1980s, Melvin Dow and Stanford Alexander, two giants in the AIPAC community--the American Israel Public Affairs Committee--asked Roger to help grow the pro-Israel committee in Houston. Well, I know Roger never did anything halfway; he poured his heart and his soul into outreach efforts. When you have somebody as outgoing, passionate, and likable as Roger, you are bound to get results. Roger's work in Houston was so successful that in 2002 he was asked to serve on AIPAC's National Board, a position he would hold for nearly two decades. Lucky for me, that is how Roger and I ended up on the same trip to Israel in March of 2002. We visited Israel during the Second Intifada, a time of serious violence and unrest. Little did I know at the time I wouldn't just look to Roger for insight during our trip; he would become a trusted friend and source of advice over the next two decades. Make no mistake, I wasn't the only one who learned from Roger. As a member of AIPAC's National Board, he would make almost monthly trips to Washington, DC--often with a group of Texans--to advocate for a strong future and a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. Teddy Roosevelt once said, ``Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care.'' It only took a few words to realize how much Roger knew because you also saw how much he cared. He cared deeply about Israel, its people, and its success, and became a respected voice on the importance of a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. He didn't care if you were a Democrat or a Republican--if you were willing to listen, he was happy to talk. But meetings with Roger weren't limited to conversations about the Middle East or ongoing political tensions; in typical fashion, he peppered every conversation with a lot of fun too. It wasn't uncommon for Roger to walk into a meeting with a Senator or a Congressman and show them pictures of his beloved dog, Ginger. It was even less surprising for that person to ask Roger the next time that they saw him, ``So, Roger, how is Ginger doing?'' He was a big animal lover, and along with dogs, his other great love, interestingly enough, was horses. He loved the animals themselves, as well as the atmosphere and energy at horse tracks. He was such a great handicapper that Rice University sent a statistics class with him to a horse track just so they could see how he did it. Last year, just days after being diagnosed with a rare form of leukemia, Roger was able to witness the moment every horse enthusiast dreams about. A horse he co-owned named Tiz the Law qualified for the Kentucky Derby. That horse would go on to win the Belmont Stakes and place second in the Run for the Roses--one of Roger's proudest accomplishments. Yes, Roger was a man of many talents: a left-handed pitcher, an expert handicapper, an amateur comedian, a skilled storyteller, and an effective advocate. Above all, though, Roger's greatest skill was his ability to live fully and authentically. He valued his relationships above all else, and he could turn a complete stranger into a friend with just a few words. I believe our friendship was proof of that. Sadly, I, along with my wife Sandy, send condolences to Roger's beloved family, including his wife Linden; his children, Nicole, Scott, Jennifer, and Rebecca; as well as his grandchildren, Elizabeth, Sam, and Beau. Roger lived an extraordinary life, and he leaves behind an unforgettable legacy. I am grateful to have known this man. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it appears that our friends across the aisle are experiencing an existential crisis when it comes to deciding how to manage their newfound powers in the majority. We are just 2\1/2\ months into this new Congress, and already we are hearing the majority leader and many on the other side of the aisle threatening to blow up the rules of the Senate. After decades as a Senator, President Biden even yesterday relented and threw his support behind the plan. The filibuster has been called into question a number of times over the past few years. That is to be expected, but it is just that our Democratic friends used to be on the other side of the argument. They took one position when they were in the minority, where the filibuster protected their rights. And now when they are in the majority, many of them are looking to eliminate any minority rights and to fundamentally change the Senate. In 2018, our Democratic colleagues were afraid the Republican Senate majority would blow up the filibuster. I am not really sure why they were concerned. After all, Senator McConnell and Republican Senators have consistently defended the rights of the minority by use of the legislative filibuster, even when President Trump called for it to be eliminated. But our Democratic friends keep piling on. Senator Durbin, the Senator from Illinois, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was asked about President Trump's call to end the filibuster--that was when President Trump called to end the filibuster--and he said: ``That would be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going back to the Founding Fathers.'' That would be on the right-hand side of this chart. Just to repeat, he said: ``That would be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going back to the Founding Fathers.'' I agree with Senator Durbin. I agreed then, and I agree now. The Senate filibuster was designed to ensure that the two political parties would actually have to work together, which I think the American people believe is a good thing. And it should be hard to do the work of building consensus in a country as big and diverse as the United States. But the filibuster was designed to make sure that the majority just couldn't jam things through and deny the rights of the minority to be heard. But when you get 60 Senators to agree on something, it becomes all but impossible for ultrapartisan proposals to become law. That is the nature of the consensus-building process, and that is a good thing for the country. Imagine the instability and unpredictability that would occur if laws changed as quickly as Presidents and Senate majorities do. Just 4 years ago, Republicans controlled both Chambers of Congress and held the White House. Twelve years ago, our Democratic colleagues controlled all three. The filibuster was designed to encourage, again, consensus building on a bipartisan basis and to provide some stability between those transitory majorities and changing Presidents. And that is a good thing, like I said, in a country where the political party in control is constantly changing, and it ensures that a minority viewpoint cannot be steamrolled. Our Senate Democratic friends have certainly benefited from the protections of the filibuster over the last 6 years. They filibustered countless bills on everything from pandemic relief to police reform. But now it appears that our Democratic colleagues--at least their leadership--have flip-flopped. The political tides have shifted, and since the radical left wants to get rid of the filibuster, so do they. In a floor speech earlier this week, this same Senator, Senator Durbin, our friend from Illinois, said the filibuster is ``not the guarantor of democracy. It has become the death grip of democracy''--a pretty dramatic conversion from 2018 to 2021. What has changed? Well, the majority has changed. Republicans controlled the majority when he thought the filibuster was a good thing. Now, when Democrats control the majority, he thinks it is a bad thing. Apparently, the countless filibusters of our Democratic colleagues were not a mockery of democracy. They certainly wouldn't be guilty of that. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, Democrats are ready to hit the big red button and go nuclear. And, I must say, once you go nuclear around here, you certainly don't go back. But Senator Durbin's views aren't the only ones that have changed on this matter. As I mentioned, former Senator and now President Joe Biden finally changed his views as well. For decades, he was a staunch defender of the institution. When he was asked about removing the filibuster, going nuclear, he said: This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power-grab by the majority party. Well, that is certainly not mincing your words. And this isn't some long ago abandoned view of his. In January of this year, President Biden was asked if he could move his agenda with the filibuster rules intact, and he answered yes and explained the opportunities to work together on shared priorities, as he did throughout his career as a U.S. Senator. He went on to add: I think we can reach consensus on that and get it passed without changing the filibuster rule. But now the pressure has been put on both President Biden and the Democratic leadership in the Senate to endorse a rules change, not by the ordinary course of rule changes but by the nuclear option. We know that there are unpredictable consequences of changing the rules in a place where your power, where your majority, is never guaranteed. Chipping away at the rights of the minority may help you today, but you will live to regret it when the shoe is on the other foot. But it won't take a shift in the majority for our Democratic colleagues to see the disastrous consequences of going nuclear on the filibuster rule because, if anybody needed a reminder, we have a 50-50 Senate: 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans. Yesterday, Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, somebody who has been around this institution a long time and understands it better than almost anybody I know, reminded our colleagues that ``[t]his is an institution that requires unanimous consent to turn the lights on before noon.'' Unanimous consent is literally the grease that helps the machine run. In order to accomplish even the most mundane tasks in the Senate, you need an agreement. Most of the time it is easy because it is not controversial; it is not partisan; it is the right, practical thing to do. But you need compromise, and you need a quorum. This rules change being floated wouldn't clear a path for productivity in the Senate. It is an invitation to futility. If our Democratic colleagues take the unprecedented step of blowing up the filibuster, they can expect to be met with an unprecedented response. Republicans will not sit idly by while Democrats take an axe to the rules in order to advance a partisan agenda. If Democrats go down this road, they will have no one to blame but themselves for the consequences of a horrible miscalculation.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, about 1 year ago today, Congress was in the midst of a debate about the most effective way to respond to COVID- 19. On a call with his colleagues, the House majority whip, Mr. Clyburn, reportedly laid out his vision about how his caucus in the House should proceed. He said, it is reported: This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision. For American families, this pandemic has been an unmistakable tragedy, one characterized by lost lives and lost livelihoods, but, apparently, for some, it is viewed as a tremendous opportunity. The partisan $1.9 trillion bill that was signed into law last week is proof that, apparently, the Democrats in Congress and in the White House agree. After all, this legislation includes a long list of non- COVID-related priorities, again, completely unrelated to the crisis at hand: blank checks for mismanaged union pension funds, funding for climate justice, backdoor money for Planned Parenthood, an exclusive paid leave program for government bureaucrats, and the list goes on and on. Before the bill was even signed into law, folks from the other side of the aisle started advocating making many of the provisions permanent. This is an emergency measure, supposedly, but folks advocated making those temporary provisions permanent, further proof that this is more than just a pandemic relief response; this is about, in the words of Mr. Clyburn, restructuring government as we know it. But it doesn't stop there. Now our Democratic colleagues in the House and some in the Senate apparently want to hijack the State and Federal election system, starting with making temporary pandemic election responses permanent. Of course, our elections are run at the State and local level. As a matter of fact, I recall, given the efforts of the Russian intelligence services to interfere with our election in 2016, one of the strengths of our system was its dispersed nature, suggesting, in other words, that if it had been a single system, it would have been much easier for our adversaries to interfere--and particularly in the cyber realm. But we know, as a result of the pandemic, States made provisional changes to their 2020 election processes to make sure that people could safely exercise their right to vote. In my State, we extended early voting. We allowed voters to submit mail-in ballots in designated drop boxes. Several States, of course, expanded eligibility for mail-in voting. Some, like California, took things even further and sent mail-in ballots to every registered voter. At the time, these changes were billed as temporary, given the unique and extraordinary nature of the challenges presented by the pandemic, but as the House minority whip has said, this pandemic, apparently, is viewed as a tremendous opportunity to restructure the way we run and conduct elections. House Democrats have passed legislation to make many of the temporary changes in the 2020 elections permanent and add a list of other so- called reforms in order to federalize our State- and local-run elections. This is in the face of article I of the Constitution that explicitly gives the States the power to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding elections. Yet this 791-page document creates a one-size-fits-all mandate for all States. It actually preempts State law, starting with mail-in balloting. Any person in any State could request a mail-in ballot for any reason. There is no need to say why you can't vote in person, which is the current policy in most States. Those ballots would not, under this bill, even have to be mailed in by the voter or dropped in a State-sanctioned ballot box because this legislation legalizes ballot harvesting, which means that mail-in ballots could be collected by paid activists or campaign staffers or anyone who has a stake in the outcome of the election It goes so far as to specify that States may not put any limit on how many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated person can return. It really sounds like an invitation to fraud, and you can see how this could go badly pretty quickly. Maybe the ballot gets turned in with thousands of others. Maybe it is altered. Maybe it ends up in the trash. It is hard to say. That gets to one of the root problems with this legislation is it does create limitless opportunities for fraud. Every single ballot cast illegally or due to fraud undercuts and neutralizes every legally cast ballot. One way this bill removes some of the most basic requirements of most States' ballot integrity safeguards against election fraud is by removing any requirement of identification. This was, we should recall, one of the main recommendations of the bipartisan 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, cochaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III. The Commission recommended that voters should be required to present photo ID cards and that States should provide free cards to voters who did not have a driver's license. In order to vote in person, most States require voters to produce some valid form of identification. I know mine does. In Texas, there are three options--actually, several options: a driver's license, a passport, a military ID, a citizenship certificate, and other forms of government-issued ID. If, for some reason, you can't obtain one of these forms of ID, there is still a process in place to allow a person to vote by presenting other documents, making sure that they identify the person casting the ballot. Matching the name of an eligible voter with the name on a valid form of ID is a commonsense safeguard against fraud but one which this legislation seeks to eliminate. If you go to a convenience store and want to buy a six-pack of beer or if you want to buy cigarettes or you want to get on an airplane, you have to present an ID card, but this bill eliminates that requirement when it comes to the most sacred duty and privilege that we have as citizens, and that is to vote. This legislation stops States from requiring voters to provide proof of identification. Just sign a piece of paper saying you are who you are, and no one can ask any questions. On top of that, this bill would require the States to automatically register anyone in their databases, for everything from DMV to public assistance programs. Well, we know these databases are not limited to registered voters or even eligible voters. That could include people illegally present in the country because some States allow a driver's license to be issued to noncitizens who are not legally present in the country. These databases include other noncitizens and others not eligible to vote, not to mention the fact that those who are already registered to vote could be registered again and again. And even if there are duplicate registrations or if someone passes away or moves, States would not be allowed to clean up the voter rolls within 6 months of an election. Just when you think things can't get any crazier, they do. Our Democratic colleagues are proposing that the taxpayers fund their elections. A lot of companies have a match program for charitable giving. If an employee donates to a charity of their choice, then the company will match that donation dollar for dollar. The same principle applies except, instead of a charity getting the money, under this proposed legislation, it is now a political candidate. Instead of a company footing the bill, it is the taxpayers, and instead of an exact match, it is up to $6 for every $1 donated. That means if someone donates 200 bucks to their preferred candidate, Federal taxpayers will wind up coughing up $1,200. Well, I think there are a lot of better uses for government tax dollars. They can go to support crime victims or support the response to the humanitarian crisis at the border, which we are experiencing right now. But, no, the proposal in this legislation is, let's use it to elect them. Then there are the campaign vouchers. This bill creates a new program that provides eligible voters with a $25 voucher to donate to the campaign of their choosing--again, more government, taxpayer-funded election activities. I could go on and on. This legislation also alters the fundamental structure of the Federal Election Commission to remove any need for bipartisanship or consensus building. It undermines trust and accountability in elections. It implements a new financial disclosure policy that even the American Civil Liberties Union says ``could directly interfere with the ability of many to engage in political speech about causes that they care about.'' That is the ACLU. Above all, this bill amounts to nothing more than a Federal hijacking of State elections. I can promise you, folks in my State don't want Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Schumer to determine how elections are run in our State. They want accountable leaders in our State, elected by and accountable to them, to determine the best way to conduct free and fair elections. Following the last two Presidential campaigns, the side that lost had expressed concerns about election security. A partisan attempt to overhaul our entire election system is hardly a confidence-building exercise. This bill is not a serious attempt to improve security and accountability in our elections; rather, it is a partisan power grab that will do serious damage to our Republic. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, last Thursday night, I was able to return home to Texas, and on Friday, I went to the southern border. Texas has 100 miles of common border with Mexico, and, obviously, we are at ground zero whenever there is a border crisis. I was glad to be joined by my friend Congressman Henry Cuellar, who has been a partner of mine on bipartisan, bicameral border security and immigration reform legislation in the past, and we were also joined by Congressman Michael Burgess, our friend from North Texas. We visited a holding facility in Carrizo Springs, which houses young boys, ages 13 through 17, who were apprehended along the border. We were able to see the facility, which includes medical care, classroom space, dining facilities, and legal services for these young men. And we heard from the Health and Human Services workers who are doing everything they can to care for these children, despite being completely overwhelmed. When we visited, there were 679 children between the ages of 13 and 17, but the facility is expected to reach capacity by today. This is no accident that we are seeing waves of unaccompanied minors coming across the border because the human smugglers and the drug traffickers understand our laws perhaps better than we do. And they know that if you are able to flood the zone with unaccompanied children, the Border Patrol are going to be distracted and diverted from their border security mission to take care of these children and to make sure that they are safe. In the meantime, the drug smugglers exploit those gaps left when the Border Patrol leaves the frontlines to handle and process these unaccompanied children. Last year, more than 80,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in this country, and, unfortunately, a significant percentage of that involves the methamphetamine, the fentanyl, the heroin, and the cocaine that comes up through the southern border in the hands of the same criminal organizations that move people, traffic in human beings, and, again, smuggle drugs. In the 2 months since President Biden took office, the situation along the border has come to rival the largest surges that we have seen in previous years. We remember the border crisis of 2014, when an alarming number of unaccompanied children and families came across the southern border and completely overwhelmed the system. That summer, the situation was so dire that President Obama called it a humanitarian crisis. Then came the surge in 2019. That May, Customs and Border Protection reported a recordbreaking 144,000 encounters with migrants along the southwest border, more than double the amount we experienced during the 2014 humanitarian crisis. So if 2014 was a humanitarian crisis, 2019 was a humanitarian crisis on steroids. And I am afraid the current situation is going to get nothing but worse and perhaps outpace even the humanitarian crisis on steroids that we saw in 2019. What makes this even more complicated is, while this isn't the first surge of migrants we have seen across the border, it is the first time we have seen it during a COVID-19 pandemic. And based on the current trend, this one is shaping up to be far worse than anything we have experienced in the past. Last month, Customs and Border Protection encountered more than 100,000 individuals coming across the border, the highest number since 2006. Out of those 100,000 individuals last month, it included 9,000 unaccompanied children and 19,000 migrants coming across as families; that is, some combination of a mother and father and minor children. Based on the sheer numbers, this is a problem. It is overwhelming the capacity--physical capacity--to house and to take care of these children and to make sure that these individuals are processed according to the law. Border Patrol and Health and Human Services and our immigration courts do not have the capacity to manage an influx this large. And when you add the operational challenges and risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, it becomes even more difficult to house and care for these migrants, especially the children. The facilities like Carrizo Springs were previously at a 40-percent capacity to allow for social distancing--something we have heard a lot about in the last year--but the number of unaccompanied children has climbed so high that the Biden administration is now allowing those facilities to operate at 100-percent capacity, despite the obvious risk of spreading COVID-19 because of a failure or inability to socially distance. At one point last week, there were more than 3,700 children in the custody of the Border Patrol. By comparison, there were about 2,600 children in custody at the peak of the 2019 crisis. So the numbers are significantly higher. Reports over the weekend show that the number has increased to more than 4,200, with nearly 3,000 held beyond the 72-hour legal limit imposed by a court settlement. While these migrant children are without a doubt the biggest victims of this crisis, there are cascading consequences. In Brownsville alone, more than 200 migrants were released from the Border Patrol's custody, having tested positive for COVID-19--200 positive for COVID-19, ushered into the country. So despite the obvious health risks, many of these individuals continued their travels to their ultimate destinations, both within and outside the State of Texas. Some traveled, we know, as far north as Maryland, North Carolina, and New Jersey. And this rapid-pace catch- and-release practice places a serious strain on the resources of our border communities. During the deadly winter storm last month, the mayor of Del Rio pleaded for the administration to stop releasing migrants into the city and surrounding area. The city's capacities were already stretched thin. The mayor, Bruno Lozano, said: ``We will be forced to make a decision to leave them without resources under these dire circumstances.'' When the President's Chief of Staff was asked recently about the border crisis in a recent interview, he said: ``We inherited a real mess.'' Well, that is not the way I see it. The policies the administration inherited deterred the human smugglers, the coyotes, and cartels from even attempting to smuggle children into the United States, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. They required, under the Migrant Protection Program, migrants to remain in Mexico while their asylum claims were being processed. Of course, the Biden administration has, in sort of a reflexive manner, reversed all of the previous administration's policies without any plan to put in its place and without regard to the consequences. Well, the Migrant Protection Program, which was negotiated with the government of Mexico, worked pretty well. It allowed border communities to know that they wouldn't have to bear the brunt of thousands of migrants coming across the border into their communities while simultaneously battling a pandemic. The Biden administration didn't inherit this mess; it helped create it. President Biden campaigned on the basis of policies that would lead to this very outcome. One woman who crossed the Rio Grande on a smuggler's raft said the Biden administration is the reason she and her 1-year-old son attempted the journey at all. She said: ``That gave us the opportunity to come.'' And come they did. Whether you call this a mess, as the President's Chief of Staff did, or a human challenge, as the Secretary of Homeland Security did, I can tell you one thing: Unless the Biden administration reverses course, it will only get worse. We usually see the peak numbers of migration happen during the springtime and in the early summer, frankly, because of the weather and the ease of passage. So we haven't seen nothing yet compared to what we will see unless action is taken. During my visit last Friday, one of the people involved in the operation of the Carrizo Springs facility said: This is a category 5 hurricane with tropical storm force winds on the coast. It is coming. Well, we have seen this before, as I said--many times, in fact. And unless action is taken to stem the flow of migrants across the border, that category 5 hurricane is going to break the entire system. In my time in the Senate, I have always looked to the men and women on the ground--the Border Patrol who wear green uniforms, the Customs and Border Protection officials who wear blue uniforms. I have looked to them to learn more about how things are going and how Congress and other policymakers can provide support. As I said, we share a 1,200-mile border with Mexico, and our border communities are made up of incredible networks of law enforcement, local leaders, and nongovernmental organizations that work together to help keep the migrants safe, as well as communities safe. Many of them are motivated solely by their humanitarian impulses, and we couldn't do as well as we are doing without them. One frustration I have heard in recent weeks is over vaccine distribution for Border Patrol and other Federal officers who have no choice but to come in contact with COVID-19-positive migrants coming across the border. These men and women--Federal employees, Federal law enforcement officers--are at significant risk of contracting COVID-19 because of their work with detained and vulnerable populations. We know that more than 8,000 Customs and Border Protection employees have tested positive for COVID-19, and 27 have died since the start of the pandemic. More than 2,800 of these 8,000 cases have been in my State of Texas. But despite this knowledge, the administration has not made vaccinating these men and women on the frontline a priority. Last week, Senator Sinema of Arizona and I sent a letter to Secretary Mayorkas to advocate for Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security's other Federal law enforcement officers to be prioritized for vaccination. I am glad to announce that the administration responded by opening a vaccination clinic in the Rio Grande Valley, which is a great first step, but law enforcement across the entire border deserve to be vaccinated as soon as possible. If the administration is going to implement policies that create even more dangers to these frontline officers and agents, the very least they can do is offer them protection from COVID-19. After visiting the Carrizo Springs facility, Congressman Cuellar and I traveled to Laredo, TX, where we met with a group of mayors, county judges, and a range of community leaders for a discussion on the ways this crisis is impacting them. We discussed the bungled mess of the immigration courts, which have a backlog of 1.2 million cases. In fact, the human smugglers and drug cartels know that because of our laws and our failure to offer consequences associated with illegal entry into the United States, that we will never get to those 1.2 million backlog cases and that people can simply evade the law by refusing to show up for their court- appointed date. Well, we talked about how the biggest beneficiaries of the crisis weren't the migrants crossing the border but, rather, the transnational criminal organizations--the cartels, the human smugglers, and the coyotes who bring them here. Border Patrol told me that the average smuggling fee for cartels to bring a single unaccompanied child into the Del Rio Sector was more than $7,300--$7,300 per child. The Chief of the Border Patrol sector there in Del Rio told me that just this year, they have detained people from 54 separate countries--54 separate countries--coming through the Del Rio Sector of the Border Patrol. So this is like the United Nations coming across our border, and, frankly, it is such a financially rewarding business for the human smugglers and the criminal networks, they will literally bring people from anywhere around the world across our southern border into the United States. That ought to concern all of us. Well, the Border Patrol is mounting a struggle against the border crisis and the pandemic simultaneously. Like cities across the country, our border communities have already had a very difficult year battling COVID-19. They had to cover a range of expenses created by the pandemic in order to keep their communities safe and healthy. But, unlike other communities across the country, they had the added economic hardship created by nearly a year of legal limits on nonessential cross-border travel. Prepandemic, visitors from Mexico would travel across the border to shop, eat at restaurants, and visit their family members. They were a huge economic driver in our border communities from El Paso all the way down the Rio Grande to the Rio Grande Valley. But the ``pause'' on legitimate nonessential travel has created a serious economic strain on these communities, and those leaders are struggling to understand the disconnect between the Biden administration's two different approaches. One of the participants at the roundtable said: ``I don't understand how you can catch-and-release and not let our neighbors across the border come over and spend money in our communities to help [grow] our economy.'' This confluence of crises is a one-two punch for our border communities, and it is unfair that they are expected to carry the burden of a crisis that should be the responsibility--is the responsibility of the Federal Government. In many cases, nongovernmental organizations carry a significant amount of weight that, quite frankly, is unfairly placed on their shoulders. Congressman Cuellar and I were joined in Laredo with three incredible NGOs whose resources are already stretched thin because of the pandemic and have managed to take on a substantial amount of work in managing this humanitarian crisis. I want to commend Catholic Charities of Laredo, the Sisters of Mercy, the Holding Institute Community Center, and other NGOs along the Texas border for everything they have done to respond to the humanitarian crisis. I encourage anyone who is interested in understanding the crises and working to find solutions, including President Biden, to visit our border and to hear from these same individuals firsthand. No matter what party controls the Senate, the House, or the White House, these law enforcement, local leaders, and NGOs are doing everything they can to keep both migrants and their communities safe. They are currently overwhelmed, frustrated, and eager for change, and their voices must be heard. We are at an inflection point in the humanitarian crisis, and unless the administration acts and acts quickly, we are headed down a very dangerous path. We have seen enough of these surges in the past to know what to expect. If you are opposed to human trafficking, human suffering, drug smuggling, pushing migrants into the shadows, then you should be absolutely alarmed by what is happening along the border today. The hurricane is on the way. I hope the administration and Congress will take a serious interest in acting before it makes landfall. I yield the floor

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me just congratulate our colleague from Ohio. That was, perhaps, the most concise and informative speech I have heard on that topic, including speeches that I have given on that topic. In representing a border State, as I do, and in my having served on the Judiciary Committee and on the Immigration Subcommittee for my entire time here, the way he described it, I thought, was entirely accurate. I think you can call it a crisis, a challenge--whatever you want to call it--but it is getting worse all the time, and I think it will get much, much worse if we don't act and act together. So I thank him for his outstanding remarks. (Ms. CORTEZ MASTO assumed the Chair.)

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard from the nominees for the No. 2 and No. 3 jobs at the Department of Justice. As you know, earlier today, we confirmed the next Attorney General of the United States, Judge Merrick Garland. I supported Judge Garland's nomination because I think he is a qualified, mainstream nominee with the right experience and the right temperament to lead the Department of Justice. I believe being Attorney General is probably the hardest job in the Cabinet because you have two masters. One is the rule of law, as the chief law enforcement officer for the country; the other is, you are a member of the President's Cabinet and serve at his or her pleasure, obviously, a political appointment. Judge Garland told me, and I take him at his word, that he would work hard to keep politics out of the work of the Justice Department--a goal that folks on both sides of the aisle should support, especially after the struggles of previous administrations. As I said, I was proud to support Judge Garland's nomination, and now we begin the process of considering other senior positions at the Department of Justice. One of the nominees who came before the Judiciary Committee yesterday was Lisa Monaco, who has been nominated to serve as the Deputy Attorney General. Ms. Monaco is a lifelong public servant who previously spent 15 years at the Department of Justice. She is a highly respected Federal prosecutor and national security expert. She advised President Obama and a number of other top government officials on matters like homeland security, cyber security, and counterterrorism, and her expertise extends beyond the ins and outs of matters of policy. Her knowledge of the Department of Justice as an organization will be invaluable to the Department, whose more than 100,000 employees are responsible for carrying out a diverse set of missions. It is a huge organization with a lot of moving parts. Like Judge Garland, Ms. Monaco affirmed to me that she does not intend to inject politics or to even give it a hearing within the Department of Justice and her duties as the Deputy Attorney General. I asked her, for example, if she would allow Mr. Durham, who has been appointed as special counsel, to investigate the Crossfire Hurricane issue from the last administration and the tail end of the Obama administration. She said she saw no reason not to give Mr. Durham a chance to complete his work. That is the same position we took on Robert Mueller, who was appointed as special counsel to investigate President Trump. Again, I take her at her word that she will not do anything to fire Mr. Durham or deprive him of the ability to complete his important work. Ms. Monaco discussed her experience at the Department over the course of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. She really does have a lot of important, relevant experience. She talked about the unique role of the Justice Department, which, as I suggested a moment ago, functions both as an executive agency that is charged with implementing the President's policies as well as being an independent investigator and, in some cases, a prosecutor. She described the importance of acting free from political or partisan influence as her ``North Star.'' While Ms. Monaco and I will surely have policy disagreements at some point, I trust her ability to fairly and impartially administer justice while operating free of personal bias or political agenda. I believe she is well qualified to serve as the Deputy Attorney General, and I plan to support her nomination. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for the second nominee who appeared before the Judiciary Committee yesterday. Vanita Gupta has been nominated to serve as the Associate Attorney General, which is sometimes considered to be the No. 3 position at the Department of Justice. Throughout her career, Ms. Gupta has been a clear and outspoken advocate for some pretty radical policies. In 2012, for example, she wrote that States should decriminalize the possession of all drugs--not just marijuana but all drugs--which, I presume, would include things like fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, and other highly addictive and destructive drugs. In yesterday's hearing, when I asked Ms. Gupta about this statement, she took the opposite position. She didn't tell me ``I used to advocate for that position and have now changed my position.'' She said, unequivocally, that she did not advocate for the decriminalization of all drugs. It became apparent she wanted Senators to forget what she previously wrote: States should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs, particularly marijuana, and for small amounts of other drugs. That is a quote from an article she wrote in 2012. Unfortunately, the list of inconsistencies does not end there. In June of 2020, less than a year ago, Ms. Gupta argued that it ought to be easier to sue police officers in court for money damages. Now, this is sometimes called ``qualified immunity,'' which recognizes the fact that law enforcement officers have to make split-second decisions--life-or-death decisions, actually--and that it would be unfair to them to, in retrospect, go back and flyspeck all of their decisions. In other words, it gives them some room in which to operate, recognizing the unique nature of their job. It applies to other government employees, too. Yet, in June 2020, less than a year ago, she argued that it was time to revisit this doctrine of qualified immunity--in other words, to make it easier to sue police officers for money. This was one of the many steps that she outlined in an opinion piece in a national publication following the death of George Floyd. Nine months later, she says she does not support that position--one she supported 9 months ago. Now she says she does not support the position of making it easier to sue police officers. And there is more. Last summer, Ms. Gupta put her support behind the ``defund the police'' movement. As our country engaged in an important and long overdue debate about the police's use of force and responsible policing strategies, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on that very topic. Ms. Gupta testified before the committee and said: While front-end systems changes are important, it is also critical for state and local leaders to heed calls from Black Lives Matter and Movement for Black Lives activists to decrease police budgets and the scope, role, and responsibility of police in our lives. Yesterday, Ms. Gupta did not mince words. She said she does not support defunding the police, and she said decreasing police budgets was not defunding the police. Well, at the time we were discussing this movement for defunding police, she attempted to parse her words. It is tough to reconcile the stark difference between what Ms. Gupta has said in the past and what she now says as she attempts to win support in the Senate. I am wary and, frankly, skeptical of confirmation conversions wherein people take the opposite positions when they are nominated for important, Senate-confirmed positions from the positions they have taken in the past. I understand her interest in distancing herself from her previous positions. Decriminalizing drugs, eliminating qualified immunity-- making it easier to second-guess and sue police officers for money damages--and defunding the police are radical policy positions that should disqualify someone from becoming the third-highest ranking official at the Justice Department. In order to be confirmed, Ms. Gupta knows she needs to convince us that she actually holds mainstream views on law enforcement strategies and issues. I find it hard to believe that these views, which are not from decades-old law school writings but are recent public statements--indeed, sworn testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee--are views she no longer holds, which she said she held so recently. I want to be clear on one point. The opinions of Ms. Gupta's as a private citizen are not an issue. She has every right to hold opinions that differ from mine or anybody else's, but when you are the nominee for a high level--indeed, one of the highest levels--of critical law enforcement positions, these are highly problematic and, to my mind, disqualifying. Perhaps more so than any other Federal Department or Agency, the Department of Justice must operate free from bias and political agendas. The men and women leading the Department must be able to separate their personal beliefs from the jobs before them. No matter how they feel about the wisdom of the policies enacted by Congress, their jobs are to enforce the law not as they want it to be but as it is. People across the country should have confidence that the senior leaders at the Justice Department will follow the law as written-- without fail. We can't have leaders who turn a blind eye to whatever is politically convenient when it conflicts with their personally held positions. Based on Ms. Gupta's clear history of radical policy positions, which stands in stark contrast to the laws she would be charged with enforcing, I do not believe she can separate her convictions from the job at hand. Leaders within the Department must be able to view all matters as matters of fact and as matters of duty, not just as matters of opinion or as platforms to argue for changes in the law. As the Senate has considered the President's nominees over the past several weeks, I have been very clear that I will not oppose nominees based simply on the President's political party. I think the President is entitled to some deference as to the people he chooses. That was the strategy of our Democratic colleagues previously, and it is incredibly damaging to both our country and its institutions. Just because a President you don't like has nominated somebody does not justify opposing that President's nominee. I will continue to evaluate all nominees of this President based on their merits and their abilities to do the jobs for which they were nominated. I firmly believe that the American people deserve to have qualified, fairminded individuals leading these important Departments and Agencies. For the Department of Justice, which is responsible for enforcing the law of the land and imparting fair and equal justice, that is doubly true. There is simply no room for political or partisan or ideological agendas at the Department of Justice. I am concerned that Ms. Gupta will continue to pursue those objectives from within the Department and use all of the Department's tools and the authority given to her to achieve these ideological outcomes. Therefore, I cannot support her nomination I yield the floor.