John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, less than a month ago, President Biden made a surprising statement--or maybe I should say, another surprising statement. He said: My Build Back Better agenda costs zero dollars-- zero dollars. That is a big, you might even say unbelievable claim. For starters, half of his agenda is a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill that will increase the deficit by more than $250 billion over 10 years. The other part is a multitrillion-dollar tax-and-spending spree, which leans on damaging tax hikes to cover a long list of social welfare programs to make the United States of America look more like, say, a European social welfare state. Now, how could that possibly cost zero dollars? Well, the answer is pretty simple: It can't. Even the Washington Post fact checkers gave this claim two Pinocchios. This strategy of misleading, misstating, and--I hate to say it, but there is no other word for it--downright lying to the American people is a tried-and-true strategy of the Biden administration. Whether it is advancing legislation or dodging a crisis, there is no promise that is too big to make, even if it is patently false. Another example. Dating back to the campaign trail, President Biden has repeatedly promised the American people: If you make over $400,000 a year--excuse me--if you make under $400,000 a year, you will not pay more income tax. Well, we have heard the same talking points from the Treasury Secretary, Secretary Yellen, and the White House Press Secretary dutifully comes out and parrots the same position again and again and again. It is almost as if, if you say something often enough, people will begin to believe it even if it is not true. Considering the enormous amounts of spending that the Biden administration has promised, I understand why they are a little worried about the truth. All of us like free stuff, whether it is a free T- shirt at a football game or free samples at a grocery store. What folks don't like, though, is learning that they are being played and that they are still paying but maybe by different means. So when it comes to free college, free childcare, and other free programs under President Biden's agenda, most people realize there is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody somewhere is going to have to pay for it, even if it is borrowed money. The next generation, like our pages here, when they enter the workforce, they are going to be the ones who have to pay that money back. Somebody is going to have to pay it back. There is no such thing as free. Contrary to the promises made by President Biden and his administration, the middle class will help to foot the bill for this spending bonanza. An analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation found that many families will see their taxes increase under President Biden's Build Back Better agenda. In 2023, 2 years from now, 18 percent of those earning between $75,000 and $100,000 will pay more in taxes, not $400,000 or more. More than a third of the folks earning between $100,000 and $200,000 a year will see a tax increase, not people making $400,000 or more. If this trend continues into 2027, well over half of taxpayers earning between $75,000 and $100,000 will pay more in taxes. And a whopping 86 percent of folks earning between $100,000 and $200,000 will see a tax increase. Now, you might wonder, how can the President have it so wrong? This is not news to President Biden. He knows better. He is surrounded by world-class economic advisers, analysts, and tax experts who scrutinize and scrub every single policy before it comes to see the light of day. Yet, you might wonder, why does the President persist in claiming that his tax hikes won't impact the middle class even as he is trying to slip them a massive tax bill? I hate to state the obvious, but it is just dishonest. Of course, all of this comes at a time when many family budgets are already underwater, struggling to recover from the fiscal impact of COVID-19. Now, from gas stations, to grocery stores, to electricity bills and restaurant checks, the American people are being pummeled by inflation, paying more for the things they used to pay less for. What is the Biden administration's response? Well, the President's Chief of Staff, Ron Klain, dismissed inflation as something he called a high-class problem, which I guess means that only rich people are suffering or experience that inflation. Again, this is clearly not true. My constituents in Texas don't see it that way. They see inflation outpacing their wage increases and essentially giving them a pay cut. They are paying 10 percent more at the butcher counter than they were a year ago and 42 percent more on gasoline. If you are a senior operating on a fixed income, you have to spend more of that fixed income to end up with less. So, no, this isn't just a problem for the high class. Unfortunately, it is not going away soon either. You remember when concerns were raised with the Federal Reserve Chairman, Jay Powell, about inflation, and he said: Well, it is probably only transitory--meaning it is a passing moment. Well, now we see that economists expect inflation rates to remain steady through the end of next year, which would mark the longest period of inflation above 5 percent in three decades. So if inflation is at 5 percent, that means you are having to pay $1.05 to get what you used to pay $1 for, and it is compounded each year. While inflation is expected to ease some--or at least we are hoping and praying that is the effect--by the middle of next year, rates are still likely to be higher than they were before the pandemic. Folks who can't afford to fill up their gas tanks to get back and forth to work or buy what they need at the grocery store don't need to be told that things are just fine when they know they are not. The American people need to see real leadership here that addresses the root causes of inflation, not pouring gas on that inflation as the $3\1/2\ trillion reckless tax-and-spending spree would do. It would just create more money chasing the same goods and services, driving prices up. And the American people certainly deserve better than false statements that ignore the magnitude of their pain.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last few months, the American people have watched in disbelief and then in anger as the Biden administration has completely fumbled the response to the border crisis. In the spring, the biggest concerns were the thousands of children coming across the border. We lacked the facilities, the personnel, and the resources to provide proper care for those children, particularly in those kinds of numbers. At one point, one of the processing centers in Donna, TX, in the Rio Grande Valley was at 1,600 percent of capacity. Then, in the summer, the scale and scope of the crisis grew. In addition to the thousands of unaccompanied children entering our country each month, the number of family units has skyrocketed. I should pause to add, Mr. President, that the reason why the smugglers send in unaccompanied children is because they know they will simply be placed with sponsors in the interior of the country and most of them will fail to return to the immigration courts for their asylum hearing. So they will have been successfully placed in the United States, sometimes with relatives, sometimes with noncitizens, sometimes with foster families who don't know them at all. That is why the smugglers have been smuggling unaccompanied children. But in August alone, more than 86,000 members of families--typically women with young children--have crossed the border. Now that we have reached the fall, the crisis has shifted once again. I think what really grabbed people's attention was when they saw the little town of Del Rio, TX, with 15,000 Haitian migrants under a bridge in Del Rio, TX. First of all, they were shocked. They thought this was a Central American phenomenon or Mexican migrants. But the reality is, as Border Patrol will tell you and has told me, we literally have people coming from around the world across the southern border, including some countries of particular concern. So the Haitians got people's attention and completely overwhelmed the border region and our capacity to deal with them. That is why 400 Border Patrol agents had to be shipped in from other parts of the border or from interior checkpoints, which means that those other locations were understaffed or perhaps had no staff at all. That, in turn, is an invitation to the drug smugglers to smuggle more drugs across the border. I have mentioned time and time again this shocking number: 93,000 Americans died of drug overdoses last year. The vast majority of those drugs come across the southern border. So the cartels--these criminal organizations that smuggle people, drugs, and other contraband--they are pretty smart. They understand where the weaknesses are, where the gaps are both in our policy and in our physical ability to secure the border, and they play us just like a fiddle. The individuals and families huddled under the Del Rio Bridge--they were trying to escape triple-digit temperatures. It is hot in August and September in Texas, and they had little, if any, access to food, clean water, or restrooms. It took a number of days before the Department of Homeland Security was able to remove them from what the New York Times described as squalid conditions--truly, Third World conditions. Now, President Biden has said to the migrants: Don't come to the United States. But the fact is, what he says with his mouth, with his lips, is contradicted by all of his policies and all of his action and inaction. Here, let me share a few headlines from the last several months: ``Overwhelmed Texas border community begins busing migrants to Austin''; ``Migrants freed without court notice--sometimes no paperwork''; ``Haitian migrants released in U.S. on `very, very large scale'.'' Folks beyond our borders are reading this. Friends and family in the United States are communicating with potential migrants who have come across. Certainly, the human smugglers--the coyotes--who get rich and are getting richer with every person they smuggle into the United States, are reading these headlines and watching cable TV and talking to people inside the heartland of our country. The message they see with their own eyes or they hear from others contradicts this lip service, really, that President Biden has been paying to border security. Like I said, this is especially true among the cartels and criminal organizations that charge thousands of dollars a head to bring folks from literally anywhere around the world. It just gets a little more expensive. If you want to come from, let's say, the Middle East or if you want to come from, let's say, Iran or Afghanistan, it is a little more expensive than if you just want to come from Mexico or Central America, but you can do it because the same networks and criminal organizations run those networks in those countries around the world. Last week, the Biden administration handed the cartels a big recruiting tool. Let me read you another headline: ``U.S. Will No Longer Deport Illegal Immigrants Based on Undocumented Status Alone.'' That is what Secretary Mayorkas, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said: The U.S. Government will not enforce U.S. law. As if we needed to add any more to the chaos and the crisis on the border, Secretary Mayorkas has provided explicit confirmation that the Department of Homeland Security will not enforce our immigration laws. His directive strongly discourages Immigration and Customs Enforcement from even carrying out their most basic duties. I know it seems like a long time ago, but it wasn't that long ago when people said: ``Abolish the police.'' Before that, they said: ``Abolish ICE,'' Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But now they are, maybe, not so much intent on abolishing ICE as just telling them don't do your job. Don't enforce the very laws that we in Congress have made. Considering the fact that the border czar, Vice President Harris, once compared ICE to the Ku Klux Klan, we probably should have seen this coming. Liberal activists can throw out their ``Abolish ICE'' posters because the administration is, effectively, nullifying the Agency from the inside. The reality of the situation, however inconvenient it may be, is that, by entering the United States illegally, migrants are breaking U.S. laws. We are fortunate, indeed, and grateful to the hard-working men and women of ICE and Customs and Border Protection, who are committed to enforcing our laws and keeping the American people safe, but they can't do it when they are told don't do your job or if the administration continues to denigrate these officers to try to shame them and to publicly criticize them for doing what we have asked them to do. Secretary Mayorkas's decision not to enforce our immigration laws isn't an example of prosecutorial discretion, which is the usual excuse; it is a violation of his oath. The Department of Homeland Security is charged with safeguarding the American people, but it can't do it because of the direction of its own leadership--a member of President Biden's Cabinet. There is nothing wrong with prioritizing the removal of the most dangerous criminals who are here illegally. Previous administrations have prioritized certain categories, like those suspected of terrorism or others who could be a threat to our national security or public safety, but there is a difference between prioritizing and exempting entire categories from enforcement altogether. Under this new guidance from Secretary Mayorkas, ICE officers are discouraged from arresting or removing illegal immigrants unless they have been convicted of a serious crime. It is unclear, though, whether domestic violence meets this criteria. Certainly, other crimes don't. So it defies all common sense to ask our law enforcement officers--that is what ICE officers are; they are law enforcement officers--to turn a blind eye to illegal conduct and not do what they have sworn to do in a professional oath. I am reminded of a controversial directive issued by another one of President Biden's nominees to enforce our Nation's laws. Rachael Rollins was nominated to serve as the U.S. attorney for Massachusetts and is currently the district attorney for Suffolk County--home to Boston. She is a current nominee from the Biden administration. Shortly after taking office as the Suffolk County district attorney for the State and local office, she released a memo that outlined more than a dozen crimes that should be ignored by law enforcement. This was the district attorney, who was charged with enforcing the laws, saying to law enforcement: Ignore the laws. According to Ms. Rollins, individuals who committed offenses like trespassing, shoplifting, larceny--that is stealing--wanton or malicious destruction of property or even possession with intent to distribute drugs should not be prosecuted. Again, I have no issue with law enforcement using limited resources to address the biggest threats and to prioritize their prosecution decisions, but they cannot, I believe, consistent with their oaths, exempt wholesale classes of criminals from enforcement. Under the Biden administration, we are already seeing a record-low number of deportations for people who violate our immigration laws. Back in April, as border crossings hit their highest level in 20 years, ICE removed the lowest number of illegal immigrants on record. There is no coincidence there. The guidance from Secretary Mayorkas sends an unequivocal message to the entire world that, if you want to come to the United States illegally, you will be able to stay as long as you don't get caught committing a murder or some other crime of a similar nature. The administration has tried to claim that this will not serve as a pull factor. That is what the Border Patrol talks about with the push factors--poverty, violence, and maybe things like that which are the push factors for immigration--but they also talk about the pull factors, which are things that the migrants see and the smugglers see that will actually attract more illegal immigration to the United States. The administration has tried to claim that this refusal to enforce our immigration laws won't act as an additional pull factor because, they say, the order only applies to immigrants who entered the United States before November 2020. But let's consider some of the other things that have been said. For example, Vice President Harris said migrants should not come to the United States because they will be turned back. That is clearly not happening. That is clearly not the case. We were told that the Department of Homeland Security would use title 42, a public health law, to return the vast majority of Haitian migrants because, after all, while we are still dealing with the pandemic of COVID-19, these migrants, by and large, aren't vaccinated, and they are not tested for COVID-19 when they are released into the interior of the United States. You would think that would be a problem for the Biden administration, but Secretary Mayorkas just flat lied to the American people when he said what would happen to the migrants from Haiti. Some 13,000 migrants from that group have been released into the interior of the United States before even appearing in front of an immigration judge. Clearly, that was a lie when he said they would be repatriated to their country of origin. So we have no reason to believe that things will be any different this time. The President can't have it both ways. He can't say he is taking a tough stance on illegal immigration to appease one wing of the Democratic Party while implementing policies that just encourage more illegal immigration to appease the other wing. The only way to address this crisis is to enforce our laws, not as the Biden administration wishes they were written. If we are going to have any hope of managing the current crisis and the additional crisis that will necessarily follow, deterrence is a key. As the Border Patrol told me, there have to be consequences for illegal immigration. If there are no consequences, people are going to continue to come in greater and greater numbers. Albert Einstein reportedly once said: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Unless the administration backs up their ``do not come'' statements with actions which actually send the same message, we are going to continue down this very dangerous road. What will need to happen next before the administration takes this crisis seriously? More than 200,000 border crossings during each of the last 2 months didn't get their attention nor did the group of 30,000 migrants in Del Rio, TX, in a matter of days. So you can't help but ask: How many more migrants will have to suffer before President Biden and Vice President Harris finally back up their empty statements with action? We stand ready to help and to work on a bipartisan basis. As a matter of fact, Senator Sinema and I, along with our colleagues Henry Cuellar and Tony Gonzalez in the House, have a bipartisan-bicameral border solutions bill. It is not perfect, and it doesn't answer all the questions, but it is a good place to start. So far, we have heard nothing but crickets from the administration. Apparently, they don't care about the status quo and, so far, seem unwilling to do anything differently to correct it. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, from gas stations to grocery stores, to utility bills and restaurant checks, the American people are being pummeled by inflation. The cost of everything is going up. Last week, the Commerce Department reported that a key indicator of inflation had reached the highest level in three decades--30 years. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve has said that we are unlikely to turn a corner on this until sometime next year. How he knows that, I don't know. Previously, he said, well, this inflation would be merely transitory, a passing thing. But it is beginning to look like that is not the case. And, clearly, he is mainly guessing. With this as a backdrop, our Democratic colleagues are apparently trying to figure out how to inflict even more economic pain on the American people. They spent months negotiating solely among themselves in order to bring about a radical transformation in our country by spending money on programs we don't need or want--things like permanent welfare for no work requirements; things like tax increases that, contrary to President Biden's promise, will hit Americans earning less than $400,000 a year; subsidies for millionaires; buying electric vehicles that most average wage earners can't afford; taxes that will hurt American businesses and help our major nation-state competitor, China; as well as provide a range of so-called free--they like that word ``free''--social safety-net programs that really aren't free at all. Now, this isn't critical funding necessary to lead America out of the pandemic like we did last year on a bipartisan basis. This isn't even designed to revive our struggling economy. I would argue that it would do just the opposite. It would suppress the recovery from the recession that was caused by the pandemic. This is merely a reckless, partisan spending spree designed to grow the size of government's role in our daily lives. In recent weeks, I have heard from more than 50,000 of my constituents--that is a lot--about one absurd example of government overreach proposed by the administration and which is part of the reconciliation bill that is now sitting in front of the House of Representatives. The IRS already knows how much money you make, but now the Biden administration wants to know how you spend it too. This isn't a safeguard to stop illicit activity like money laundering or tax fraud. That already exists. Any taxpayer who receives a transfer of $10,000 or more in a single transaction has to report that to the IRS. But what our Democratic colleagues want to do is to invade the privacy of everyday Americans who rarely make five-digit transactions. So tucked in the President's budget is a new IRS reporting requirement with a much lower threshold, $600. If you use your bank accounts to spend or receive more than $600 in a year's time, our Democratic colleagues think that should be reported to the IRS. So if you are writing a check for your mortgage or your rent or maybe you are buying a new washer or dryer or refrigerator, the IRS wants to know that you are spending that money. This is an Agency that has already been plagued by scandals and has hardly been a responsible steward of personal financial data. Earlier this year, an unknown source within the IRS leaked more than 15 years' worth of taxpayer information to journalists. And we all remember the IRS targeting conservative-leaning groups during the Obama administration. But the IRS has given even more personal financial data, literally conducting surveillance on the American people. The trove of information that could be abused gets a lot bigger. Democrats want to give the IRS more manpower to sift through all of this by doubling the size of the Agency, adding to an army of Internal Revenue agents out searching for more revenue with which to grow the government. So instead of a chicken in every pot, every household will get an audit. This is, I submit, a fundamental attack on the privacy and financial freedom of everyday Americans and puts all Americans' data at risk of being hacked or leaked. It also places a huge new burden on our community banks and credit unions. Having to organize and transmit all this additional data to the IRS in a secure way is no easy task. Does the administration plan to help local banks, credit unions do this? I doubt it. It is just going to add to their overhead and to their administrative burdens. Our Democratic colleagues also want to reinstate the so-called SALT deduction, which allows wealthy individuals in blue States--it is no coincidence--to pay less in taxes. According to the liberal Tax Policy Center, 93 percent of those making a million dollars or more would get a tax break. So much for our Democratic colleagues' rhetoric about millionaires and billionaires getting a tax break. They want to make sure that each one of them gets about a $48,000 tax cut under their proposal. This isn't an attempt to support those who are struggling to make ends meet; it is a financial lifeline for millionaires and billionaires. This type of legislation our colleagues are trying to pass includes a massive, ill-conceived tax plan; government overreach; irresponsible spending; and radical policies that put unnecessary burden on beleaguered American workers and families. Earlier this year, our Democratic friends charged nearly $2 trillion to the taxpayer credit card in a party-line vote. Unlike the COVID-19 relief bills we passed last year virtually unanimously, one after the other, when the Biden administration came into office, the first thing they did was spend $2 trillion in borrowed money, only 10 percent of which was related to COVID-19. So they did that without any Republican help. Now they are trying to figure out how to go on an even bigger spending blowout--once again, all alone. But they think upping the credit limit should be a bipartisan task. Our friends across the aisle have talked about how, historically, lifting the debt ceiling has been a bipartisan endeavor, but they failed to mention that so has spending. There has never been a time in our country's history when one party has spent trillions of dollars and aspires to spend trillions of dollars more without the support of a single person on the other side of the aisle. Why would Republicans vote to increase the debt limit and sign off on this reckless spending? If someone stole your credit card and ran up the bill, would you up your own credit limit so they could continue shopping? No way. But that is exactly what Democrats are asking Republicans to do by upping the debt limit. They have the votes. They have a process by which they can raise the debt limit, and they need to do it before we risk a default, according to the timeline given to us by Secretary Yellen. So our Democratic colleagues have chosen to light taxpayer dollars on fire, but we are not going to hand them another match. We have been clear on that point since at least July. Unsurprisingly, our friends on the other side don't like this plan. They see the dangers in continuing to drive up the debt without any action to address the root causes, and they want to have Republicans to share the blame. But what needs to happen is some accountability because accountability will bring with it some fiscal responsibility. But as long as our Democratic colleagues can continue to spend trillions of dollars in borrowed money on their reckless tax-and-spending spree and have us join them in raising the debt limit, then no one--no voter, no taxpayer--can actually know who is to blame. Well, if Democrats want to spend alone, they have to up the debt ceiling alone, too, and we know they have the tools and the votes to do it. But rather than addressing this problem in July or August or September, our Democratic colleagues have waited until the last minute and march us closer and closer to a debt crisis. They have had the time to up the debt limit on their own, and they have had the means to do it. So they need to stop playing chicken with an economic crisis and do what they know needs to be done. So far, Democrats have not been held back by their razor-thin majority. It didn't stop them from spending $2 trillion in borrowed money at the beginning of this year. It hasn't slowed their plans to try to spend trillions more this fall. And now it shouldn't stop them from increasing the debt limit on their own so the American people can see who is responsible and hold those elected officials accountable in the 2022 election. The Democratic majority of the Senate has embraced a go-it-alone attitude on legislating all year, and these are just some of the examples of what that has produced: tax increases on the middle class; car subsidies for millionaires; taxes that hurt American businesses and American jobs but actually help China; providing so-called free, taxpayer-funded social safety net programs to try to turn the United States into a European welfare state; increased IRS surveillance of the everyday finances of average Americans; and I mentioned, finally, tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. So now is the time to reap what our Democratic colleagues have sown, and I hope they will act sooner rather than later. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee had a hearing to discuss two of our Democratic colleagues' biggest headaches: the Supreme Court of the United States and State laws that protect the right to life. This wasn't the first time we have seen an attack on both waged by Members of the Senate. Last year, the majority leader, Senator Schumer, walked across the street to the Supreme Court and threatened two Supreme Court Justices by name based on an abortion case that they were considering. Sadly, it seems that our Democratic colleagues have simply given up when it comes to protecting innocent life. In 2020, February 2020, the Senate voted on a bill that would outlaw elective abortions after 20 weeks, when science tells us that a fetus can actually feel pain. Had this bill become law, it would have put U.S. domestic policy in line with that of most of the rest of the world. Unfortunately, we happen to be in a small category, including North Korea and communist China, when it comes to the ability to get an abortion well into the period of gestation, including up to late-term abortions. As it stands today, the United States is currently one of only seven countries to allow elective abortions after 20 weeks. As I said, those seven countries include the Communist Party China and North Korea. But our Democratic colleagues filibustered that bill too. Then came one more opportunity to protect the most vulnerable among us. The Senate voted on legislation requiring doctors to provide lifesaving care to infants who survive abortions, just like any other newborn child would receive. That sounds like common sense, right? Well, if you ask the American people, they say yes. More than three- quarters of the American people, when it comes to polling, said they support providing medical treatment for babies who survive abortions. But there are no Federal laws requiring healthcare providers to care for these children just as they would any other infant in their care. And, yes, you guessed it--Democrats blocked that bill too. The attack on innocent life has been years in the making, but we have never seen anything quite like the latest endeavor that has come from the House of Representatives. The so-called Women's Health Protection Act is actually ``Nancy Pelosi's Abortion Protection Act.'' This isn't just about messaging. The Senate version of the bill is cosponsored by all but two of our Democratic colleagues. Clearly, the provisions included in this bill don't represent the beliefs of just some small subset of the Democratic Party. Apparently, it is mainstream within the Democratic Party. But it is clear that this is a no-holds-barred attack on the right to life. One of the most outrageous and unprecedented aspects of the bill is it limits State laws limiting abortion even after viability. This goes far beyond where the Supreme Court went in Roe v. Wade. It also undermines another landmark abortion case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In Casey, the Supreme Court abandoned the trimester framework of Roe, replacing it with a viability standard to determine a State law's constitutionality. Even the author of Roe v. Wade and of Casey agreed that this viability standard was largely arbitrary. But this decision came in 1992, when a baby was considered viable after 23 or 24 weeks. But the marvels of modern medicine continue to challenge this estimate. Last June, a baby was born at 21 weeks and 2 days, and this past summer, he celebrated his first birthday. The extreme legislation attacking the right to life coming out of the House and now embraced by Senate Democrats would undercut the Supreme Court's ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood and would invalidate State laws that limit abortions after 20 weeks, which is now the consensus period of viability. A number of States have passed laws to restrict access for different gestational periods--for example, in Massachusetts and Nevada, for example, abortions are restricted after 24 weeks. In California, Washington, and Illinois--they are among the many States that restrict abortions after viability. But the Democratic proposal is so extreme, it would invalidate the laws passed in each of these blue States. If this proposal, the Pelosi abortion bill, became law, it would allow healthcare providers to perform abortions at any point so long as it is done to preserve the mother's health. This actually undermines the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that said it is constitutional to limit so-called partial birth abortions as a barbaric practice that does not have constitutional protection. But the provision that would allow abortion at any point in the pregnancy so long as it is done to preserve the mother's health--that doesn't mean the pregnancy actually threatens the life of the mother. Let's be clear on that point. If a single healthcare provider determines that the birth of the baby would impact on the mother's mental health, an abortion would be legal at any point in the pregnancy up to birth. This is way out of step with where most Americans are. A poll this last summer found that 65 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal during the second trimester, the second 3-month period of pregnancy. An abortion opposition, I should say, to a third- trimester abortion is even stronger. These are the so-called late-term abortions where the fetus is fully formed and even viable outside of the mother's womb. Eighty percent of Americans oppose third-trimester abortions but not Pelosi's abortion act, embraced by all but two of the Democrats here in the U.S. Senate. The American people clearly do not want abortion laws that put us in the same league as China and North Korea--two of the world's most aggressive human rights abusers. Until 2016, China had a strict one- child policy. Families who didn't comply with that policy could be fined, lose their jobs, and the baby would even be the subject of a forced abortion. And it became common in China, as a result of this limitation on pregnancy, for families to prefer a son and undergo gender-selection abortions. If you are pregnant with a female child, well, abortion is fair game because they preferred to use abortion as a means to select the gender of their child. Democrats' legislation doesn't simply remain silent on gender- selective abortions; it goes so far as to prohibit States from outlawing abortion as a method of gender selection. Not only that, it undermines State efforts to protect unborn babies with disabilities or Down syndrome. Unborn children being killed solely on gender or disabilities is a devastating problem in other countries. We cannot allow such a grotesque practice to become mainstream here in the United States. We are better than that. The list of atrocities included in this legislation is a long one. It requires healthcare providers who hold deep religious objections to abortion to violate their own deeply held religious beliefs and kill unborn babies. It invalidates informed consent laws, which require healthcare providers to share accurate information with their patient about the baby and whether specifically the child can feel pain. It gives the Attorney General of the United States sweeping authority to block State laws that try to protect innocent human life. So this radical proposal from the House, now embraced by all but two of our Senate Democrats, would overturn existing State laws and allow abortions on a scale our country has never seen before. I think it is a sad commentary on the conscience of America when all but a handful of our Democratic colleagues are fighting to implement these radical policies. But we cannot and we will not stay silent at a time when our most vulnerable are being attacked in such a manner. We have a moral imperative to defend those who cannot defend themselves, born or unborn, to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Babies with heartbeats, fingerprints, taste buds--they deserve to have protection of the law too. The Declaration of Independence, after all, says that we hold these truths to be self- evident, that all are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including the right to life. I have always been proud to defend that right, and at no time in my lifetime has it ever needed more defense than right now in the face of these outrageous proposals. 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. Madam President, later this evening, the Democrat- controlled Senate will hold a vote on another dead-on-arrival bill. This time, though, it isn't just a messaging bill designed to put on a show for their far left. This is legislation that is actually critical to the stability of our government, our economy, and the livelihood of millions of public servants. For months now, Republicans have made clear, though, we will not split the ticket when it comes to Democrats' reckless tax-and-spending spree. We will not vote to raise the debt limit just so Democrats can spend another $3.5 trillion and add that to the American people's credit card in a purely partisan exercise. If this was ever a secret, it was the worst kept secret in Washington, DC. But our Democratic colleagues simply can't resist a chance to virtue signal even if it wastes valuable floor time here in the Senate. We have seen this before. In fact, Democrats' designed-to-fail agenda practically dominated the Senate's calendar this summer. There was a bill to exploit the cause of gender pay fairness in order to line the pockets of trial lawyers. There was legislation to overhaul America's election system and hand Democrats a permanent governing majority. The latest version of this bill, which will also fail, will come up for a vote in a matter of days. Senator Schumer has even forecasted votes on other bills that were so unpopular, as it turned out, that they didn't even make it to the Senate floor. There was one that would have eroded American's Second Amendment rights and another that would punish schools and hospitals that refused to comply with ``woke'' social norms. Now, this isn't an agenda to better the lives of the American people or protect the country from global threats. It is pandering, pure and simple. While pandering to their radical base is the focus of the Democrat-led Senate, there are a number of threats this body should actually address. The most obvious is the need to prevent another government shutdown. Let's not forget the Biden border crisis on our southern border. For the entirety of President Biden's term of office, Democrats have refused to acknowledge any sort of problem at all with our southern border because, apparently, they don't actually believe in borders or apparently care little about the drugs smuggled into this country that took the lives of 90,000 Americans last year alone. Even as hundreds of thousands of migrants poured across our border every month, Democrats showed no concern or didn't even acknowledge that there was a problem. Then things came to a head. Finally, the news media began to pay attention to Del Rio. Within a matter of days, 30,000 migrants--nearly 30,000, primarily from Haiti--crossed the border and set up camp under the International Bridge in Del Rio, TX. Early statements indicated that the administration would make heavy use of title 42, which is a public health title designed to protect the American people against the spread of COVID-19. Early statements indicated the administration would make use of that public health title and expedited removal to return these individuals to their home countries. It sounded like a pretty remarkably sensible strategy. But now that the migrant camp has been cleared, we know that is not what happened. Only about 2,000 migrants were returned to Haiti, a small percentage of the nearly 30,000 who crossed into Del Rio. Some 8,000 voluntarily returned to Mexico, but I expect many of those migrants and their families will make another attempt to reenter the United States. Another 5,000 of that number are currently being processed by the Department of Homeland Security. In a television appearance this weekend, Secretary Mayorkas said 10 to 12,000 migrants, the ones that were huddled under the bridge in Del Rio, TX--10 to 12,000 migrants--have been released into the United States, untested for COVID-19, unvaccinated, when, in fact, the Biden administration has said that the public health title 42 was going to be used to exclude them. Well, those numbers are likely to grow in the coming days because, frankly, all the Biden administration was concerned about, apparently, was the bad optics of 30,000 migrants huddled under a border bridge in Del Rio, TX. What the Biden administration did, as opposed to what they said they were going to do, is an open invitation for more migrants to illegally come to the United States. Individuals who are trying to decide whether to make the dangerous journey to our borders are reading the same headlines and watching the same TV news shows that we are, and many of them are simply calling their relatives in the United States saying: Should I still come? And they are being given the green light because of the failure of the Biden administration to do anything to deter or to sway or to add costs to people illegally entering the United States. In so doing, the Biden administration is sending an unmistakable message to more migrants to come to the United States because, if you do, there is a good chance you will be released into the American countryside and disappear into that great American heartland. Migrants will ignore what President Biden is saying because they know what his administration is doing or, in this case, not doing, which is not securing the borders. Unless something changes, the Haitian migration and the crisis in Del Rio that fixated the attention of the news media and all America-- unless something changes from a policy perspective, this is going to happen again. We already know that border crossings are at their highest levels in 20 years. Now the administration is apparently opening the door to even more illegal migration. And the smuggling organizations--the organized crime syndicates that profit from charging these migrants thousands of dollars to get them into the country--will continue to get rich because of the administration's unwillingness to enforce our immigration laws. Well, Congress has a duty to take action and address this crisis before it grows even more out of control. Democrats cannot ignore the responsibility to enforce our laws and secure our borders just because it upsets part of their political base. There are a lot of things we need to do in the Senate, and this parade of dead-on-arrival bills does nothing to move us in the right direction. Clearly, our Democratic colleagues are finding their newfound majority--they are having a lot of trouble using this power to actually govern. They have a wide gulf between the so-called moderates of their party--what they can stomach and what the progressive leftwing demands. They are up against the government funding deadline in just the next few days that could risk a shutdown during what is already tough economic times for many Americans because of the pandemic. They are trying to use a partisan budgetary process to pass trillions of dollars of more deficit-spending while also trying to get another trillion- dollar infrastructure bill signed into law. To top things off, they have fanned the flames of the crisis at our border, struggled to defend an indefensible, disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, and offended America's oldest ally. This is not what governing looks like. There is no spotlight on a party like there is when you hold all the cards--when you control the White House, the House, and the Senate. The American people know who is responsible for the status quo. When the majority party all but refuses to work with the minority party, that spotlight grows even brighter. I hope--but frankly I don't expect--that our Democrats will reevaluate the wisdom of this parade of failed bills and spend a little bit of time working with Republicans on legislation that could actually pass and make a positive difference for our country. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, 8 months into the humanitarian crisis at the southern border, our Democratic colleagues are finally, finally paying attention. This is after 1.2 million migrants have arrived since President Biden took office, which apparently did not raise any particular alarms. Neither did the countless numbers of migrants who endured abuse at the hands of criminal organizations and human smugglers. Our colleagues didn't spring into action either when the processing center in Donna, TX, reached 1,600 percent capacity earlier this year, and they didn't show much concern about the fact that the surge had left huge security gaps along our border, making it easier for the drug cartels to move heaven knows what into our country. Actually, we do know what they moved into the country because more than 90,000 Americans died of drug overdoses last year, principally from illegal drugs imported across the U.S.-Mexico border. Finally, our Democratic colleagues seem to be paying some attention. Over the last several days, more than 15,000 migrants, primarily Haitians, have arrived at Del Rio, TX, a town of about 35,000 people-- 15,000 migrants in a town of 35,000. You can imagine what sort of reaction they have had. These migrants have set up camp under the International Bridge, and Border Patrol, State, and local officials have been working around the clock to ease the humanitarian crisis. Of course, the first concern in 100-degree temperatures is to try to help protect these migrants, making sure they have food and water and that people don't die of heat stroke. I want to thank the Border Patrol, which does a lot of good work, and a lot of the good work it does is to save the lives of migrants who are suffering from exposure or injury and have been left behind by the coyotes, but it is also the law enforcement arm of the Federal Government to secure the border. So the Border Patrol, local, and State law enforcement and everyone seem to come together to meet the surge of migrants in Del Rio, but like the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic, these men and women have been operating in crisis mode for months and are expected to carry the weight of a crisis that everybody knew was coming. As the Biden administration races to respond to the crisis now, finally, I am left wondering: Why didn't they see this coming? After all, 1.2 million migrants have crossed our border just since Joe Biden put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office on January 20. The President campaigned, actually, on the promises of policies that were certain to lead to a surge of migrants at the border, and that is just what we have seen. When the President and Director Mayorkas and Vice President Harris say, ``Don't come,'' the migrants see people pouring across the border in the hundreds of thousands and successfully making their way into the interior of the United States. The human smugglers--the criminal organizations that move migrants from their homes across the border-- are getting rich. They are whispering in the ear of the migrants and saying: These people made it. You can make it too. Just give me my money. Earlier this year, a woman who crossed the Rio Grande on a smuggler's raft said the Biden administration was the reason that she and her 1- year-old son attempted the dangerous journey at all. She said: ``That gave us the opportunity to come.'' Some of the closest followers of the President's words and the administration's actions are the cartels and criminal organizations that get rich off of the backs of these migrants. Actually, it is pretty good money. Let's say, on average, these migrants and their families pay $5,000. It varies depending upon where you want to come from. If you want to come from a little farther away, it is a little more expensive. If you are a little closer to the border, it is a little cheaper. But let's say, on average, it is $5,000. If you multiply 1.2 million migrants times $5,000, that is a huge windfall to these criminal organizations. It is good business. It is a great business model. But migrants suffer at the hands of these cartels and human smugglers. They often arrive malnourished and are suffering from exposure. Many young women and girls have been sexually assaulted. Some of these young girls even arrive pregnant. There are hundreds of young women who are in Del Rio, under the bridge, who are now pregnant. And some of them don't make it at all. In Brooks County, TX, which is where Falfurrias is--it is an interior checkpoint by the Border Patrol--the practice of the smugglers, the coyotes, is to get people across the river, put them in a stash house, which you have probably seen some pictures of, and then, when the coast is clear, put them in a truck or some vehicle and drive them up the road, past the checkpoint. Before they get to the checkpoint, they say to the migrants: Get out of the car. Here is a gallon milk jug we have filled full of water. Here are some protein bars. We will meet you on the other side of the checkpoint. Now, some of the land around Falfurrias, where these checkpoints are located, is some of the most difficult territory you can possibly imagine, especially during the summer. Actually, the Vice President, when she was in the Senate--Kamala Harris--and I sponsored a bill to reimburse Brooks County, TX, for burying the bodies of unidentified migrants who died while trying to make that trip around the checkpoint in Falfurrias. They certainly couldn't afford it as they have a very modest tax base. The cartels are always looking for a business opportunity and an opportunity to make a sales pitch to very receptive ears. When they see the Biden administration releasing migrants into the interior, they use that information to convince others to spend the money it takes to make the dangerous journey north and, certainly, when the Biden administration releases people and tells them: ``Come back later for a court hearing'' or ``Here is a Notice to Report. When you get to where you are going, turn yourself in to ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.'' Of course, it should be no surprise that many, many, many do not show up; they do not report; and they are never heard from again unless they commit a serious crime. Then it is discovered that they have illegally entered the United States and have failed to show up for their court hearings. The point is, once these people make it into the United States, you had better believe they are on the phone--with text messages, emails-- talking to their relatives back in their home countries. And what do they tell them? They say: I made it. I made it, and you can too. So they keep coming. Well, as I said, this is big business for the cartels. They get rich off of the migrants, of course. Second, when they flood the border with all of these migrants--these huge numbers--it overwhelms the Border Patrol just with unaccompanied children alone. In the Rio Grande Valley Sector, the Border Patrol Chief said he has had to take as many as 40 percent of the Border Patrol off of the border just to take care of and to process these unaccompanied children. And what do the cartels do? Well, they are not stupid. They are actually pretty smart, and they know, when the Border Patrol is not guarding the border, that this is a tremendous opportunity to move their illegal drugs across the border into the United States. This isn't just some conspiracy theory; this is a tried and true tactic of the narcos. Earlier this week, the administration admitted to congressional staff that this was a coordinated effort by the cartels to direct Haitian migrants to a single location and overwhelm the Customs and Border Protection. In other words, this entire surge was orchestrated by a bunch of criminals. They intentionally flooded one section of the border so that personnel from others would be moved. In fact, there were 400, I believe, that Chief Ortiz said he moved from other sectors of the Border Patrol to come to Del Rio to deal with this humanitarian crisis. You had better believe the cartels took advantage of the fact that they left holes in our security along the border in order to apply their poison and move more migrants across the border. Even though we are familiar with the tactic and we have seen it time and again, the administration still removed agents from checkpoints in the Del Rio sector to respond to the migrant surge, playing right into the hands of the cartels when they took agents off the frontline. The cartels are simply playing a game. Well, actually, they are playing three-dimensional chess while the Biden administration is playing checkers, and the cartels are continuing to get rich off of this trafficking in human beings and drugs. It is no surprise this shifting of resources is simply not sustainable. The administration continues to play Whac-A-Mole on the southern border. Every time progress is made on one crisis, another one pops up. The administration says they are trying to control the crisis in Del Rio, and there were early statements that they would make use of title 42--a public health title--that gives the Border Patrol the authority to expel migrants based on concerns about spreading COVID-19 because these migrants are not tested; they are not vaccinated. Yet they are put on buses and sent off into the interior of the United States to contribute to the ongoing pandemic. The administration does have tools. Title 42 would have given them the authority to turn back the migrants, at least the adults, but now, with reports that the administration continues to release migrants into the United States, this backsliding will cause this situation to repeat itself. Maybe the next surge won't be in Del Rio. Maybe it will be in the Rio Grande Valley or El Paso or any other sector along the U.S.- Mexico border. My State has 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico. There are 2,000 miles of common border with the United States and Mexico. So my State is feeling the disproportionate negative impact on our border communities, and they need help. Without a clear, consistent, and effective approach across the entire border, Del Rio will become the new normal. There are a lot of questions we need to ask the administration, and I am glad that Chairman Durbin announced that we will have an oversight hearing of the Department of Homeland Security in the coming weeks. In particular, I want to know what the administration is doing with these 15,000 individuals once they are processed by Border Patrol. When Mr. Mayorkas says the process is working, does that mean he is taking these migrants and placing them into the interior of the United States, contrary to the earlier statements that they were going to transport these migrants by airplane back to Haiti? I would like to know how many of these migrants are being returned under title 42. How many of them are family units? How many have been released with a Notice to Report--this ``turn yourself in to ICE'' idea? How many of these individuals never report to ICE to commence their immigration court proceedings? Most importantly, is the DHS following through on their stated intent to expel or remove these individuals? That would be real deterrence. That would discourage more people from coming. But, if we find out that the administration and the Secretary have been lying to us--that instead of expelling these individuals they have been placing them into the interior of the United States, using this flawed catch-and-release approach--that is a serious problem. Transparency is key, and I hope we will have an opportunity to ask these questions under oath in the coming weeks. I would also like to know if the administration plans to appeal Judge Sullivan's ruling on the use of title 42. There is only about another week left before Judge Sullivan's order saying that title 42 is no longer available kicks in. It is important, especially while the pandemic is still upon us, that public health officials have this authority of title 42, because if title 42 isn't available, the Border Patrol tells me they fear they will lose control entirely. Title 42 has been important during the pandemic, and, as we know, the pandemic is not over. Unless Judge Sullivan's order is appealed and reversed, the U.S. Government will not be able to use this to expel most of the migrants, and there is no reason to believe that many people--particularly the cartels and others that benefit from illegal immigration--won't try to ride off of Judge Sullivan's most recent decision and obtain an injunction against the use of title 42. Without title 42, we will once again face overcrowded processing centers and even greater humanitarian crises. Unfortunately, the migrant surge is only a piece of the crisis in Del Rio. Those who depend on the ports of entry and the bridges at our U.S. international border are dying for lack of economic lifeline that that represents. And so the Biden administration has been closing these ports of entry without regard for the impact on these border communities. President Biden can't put the ``Open the Border'' sign out for illegal immigration, yet close the border for legitimate trade and travel. It defies common sense, and it is fundamentally unfair. Well, there is so much more we could say, but the Biden administration can't continue to enable these cartels or send signals to migrants encouraging them to come. This growing crisis isn't fair to law enforcement and it isn't fair to our border communities and it is not fair to the migrants. We need a clear strategy from the administration that leads to results and stops the humanitarian crisis on our own border.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, in June, our Democratic colleagues voted on their first and initial efforts to nationalize our State-run and local-run election system. That bill--this legislation, this effort-- had been years in the making. You know, in some ways, it is interesting to think about because back when our country was founded, there was a big debate on whether we should have a national government or whether we should have a Federal system. And, of course, we opted for a Federal system where the States retained their sovereignty within their authority, and all powers not delegated to the Federal Government were retained by the States and the people. That is the very definition of a Federal system. So our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle have sort of renewed that debate again, trying to upend our Federal system of governance in favor of a national government, basically a command and control run out of Washington, DC. When it comes to the takeover of our elections or to try to nationalize our elections, the initial proposal surfaced as a messaging bill in 2019 but over the years has undergone a number of makeovers. Each time, our colleagues have tried to sell this radical change in the way that our elections are run by different appeals. They have talked about, well, this is important for election security. Remember the 2016 election, obviously--big concerns about Russian misinformation campaigns and cyber attacks, and election security was obviously at top of mind. Then it was sold as a matter of regaining the voters' confidence that their vote would actually count. Then it was sold as a way to remove the obstacles that prevented people from voting, which appears to be the current message. Well, in 2020, in my State alone, but not just in Texas but across the country, we saw a record voter turnout. In my State, we said 66 percent of registered voters cast a ballot--11.3 million people. The last time I had been on the ballot, 6 years previously, we only had 4.8 million voters, but we went from 4.8 to 11.3 in just 6 years. Now, part of that is because my State has been growing. Between 2010 and 2020, we have seen 4 million new Texans, either born or moved or made their way one way or another to our State. But the 2020 election saw the largest voter turnout in 120 years--120 years. Well, clearly, if people are voting--including people of color, minorities--are voting at record levels, it is time to come up with a new sales pitch to try to sell this hijacking, really, of our State- and local-run elections. So a number of States, including my State, have recently passed legislation to address voter confidence, to make sure that elections are fair and that people have an opportunity to vote who are legally qualified to do so. The phrase many of them used in that process was, they tried to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat. So that now has been the focus of our Democratic colleagues in trying to nationalize our State- and local-run elections, which, by the way, is ensconced within the framework of the Constitution itself. So our Democratic colleagues then attacked the State election laws and really just went over the top in terms of their description of what exactly was happening. Certainly it was not factual, but they said, in a number of cases, these changes in State election laws--and I am thinking of Georgia, Arizona, and Texas in particular--they said that they are the most sweeping attacks on the right to vote since the beginning of Jim Crow, and they said the only way to change that was to pass their election law. Our colleagues talked about the bill in terms of protecting the right to vote and strengthening our democracy. Who could be against that? But the reality of the situation is very different, and the far-reaching provisions of the Democratic election takeover bill look nothing like the safeguards of democracy; they look more like a partisan power play. In the end, the only thing bipartisan about the bill was the opposition. In both the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats voted against the initial legislation, but our Democratic colleagues still refuse to recognize the reality of the vote and throw in the towel. After the failed vote this summer, our colleagues on the Democratic side went back to the drawing board and came back with a new bill they call the Freedom to Vote Act. Well, if we needed any more proof that this is not a good-faith effort to strengthen our election but, rather, a partisan power play, the bill was introduced 1 week ago, and the Senate could end up voting on it as early as this week. That is hardly what I would call a deliberative process, one that even invites bipartisan debate and consideration. So we may end up being required to vote on the bill--that is certainly the prerogative of the majority leader--with no real committee hearings, no real testimony from experts, and no indication that this bill is really being taken seriously other than to check a box and to send a message. What has really been interesting is our colleagues on the left have said--they have tried to brand this as a compromise bill. I think that is primarily because of the objection of the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, who said he couldn't support the original bill. So they tried to come up with something that maybe looked more like a compromise but really isn't, and I will talk about that more in a second. But this bill was not the result of bipartisan deliberations or consultation or communication even. As the Republican leader has noted, this so-called compromise bill is a compromise between the left and the radical left, which is hardly a compromise at all. But that is apparently the way that Leader Schumer decides to run the Senate, after all, passing a $1.9 trillion spending bill right after Joe Biden became President, with no Republican support, under the auspices of being COVID relief when only 10 percent of it actually had anything to do with COVID. Well, the good news is we have done a few bipartisan things. We passed the Endless Frontier Act--our way of trying to address the challenge of China. We passed a bipartisan infrastructure bill. But now our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to do it alone again, and they are trying to pass a bill that could end up costing taxpayers as much as $5.5 trillion. A nominal figure is $3.5 trillion, but right now, they are experiencing a lot of differences of opinion within their own ranks as to what is acceptable and what is not, and they certainly aren't talking to us. But all the while, they have continued to work on a partisan effort to overrun our constitutional delegation, really, of the election system to State and local government. So no one should be fooled. This bill is not a compromise in any sense of the word. Just like its predecessor, this bill hijacks State constitutional power to make decisions on things like voter registration and early voting. Actually, this morning in the Constitution Subcommittee, the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, was talking about the fact that his State, Connecticut, did not have early in-person voting, but they have now passed a bill that provides for a referendum in Connecticut. If the referendum passes, then the State legislature may actually provide for early voting in person. I would just tell you that the contrast between the rhetoric and the reality is pretty amazing because the Texas election law, passed by the State legislature just recently, provides for 17 days of early voting in person. In other words, there is a fulsome opportunity for anybody who is qualified to vote to cast their ballot in person or by mail if you qualify or on the day of the election. As you can see, with 66 percent of the registered voters actually taking advantage of that generous opportunity to cast their ballot, they did in historic numbers. Well, there is a saying that ``if it is not broke, don't fix it,'' and there is nothing broke about our State- and local-run election systems. Certainly the guardrails are in place. If, for example, someone were to deny a minority voter the opportunity to cast a ballot or to make sure their ballot counted just like anybody else's, there is section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In fact, the Biden Department of Justice has filed such a lawsuit against Georgia based on the changes in their voting laws. So there is plenty of opportunity to raise these issues in court should the Federal Government and should the Biden administration wish to challenge them, but the truth is, they are going to lose because what they have tried to do is to change through litigation what they cannot do constitutionally through legislation. Well, this so-called compromise bill, which is no compromise at all, contains invasive disclosure requirements that would attack the privacy of voters and chill free speech. It places handcuffs on States when it comes to drawing new legislative lines in redistributing, and it threatens action from the Attorney General if those standards aren't met. It makes it too difficult to root out fraud and protect the integrity of the vote by prohibiting voter ID for mail-in ballots and mandating drop boxes for ballots to be dropped by partisan advocates. You know, people act like there is no such thing as voter fraud, but actually we have a famous case in Texas called Box 13 in Duval County, TX, where Coke Stevenson and LBJ--Lyndon Baines Johnson--were running for the Senate. You know what they found is, because of the manipulation of the voter rolls by the county judge in Duval County, literally, they had people who were already buried in the cemetery vote in favor of Lyndon Baines Johnson in alphabetical order once they figured out how many votes they needed to cast. That is just one famous example of voter fraud. Our Democratic colleagues act like it doesn't exist. But what we did here in the Judiciary Committee a few months ago was the secretary of state for New Hampshire--he is a Democrat, and they don't have any early voting. It was interesting to hear him say that he thinks the single most important factor when it comes to people casting their ballot is people's confidence in the system that their ballot will actually be counted the way they voted. So all of these different times and conditions under which people can cast their ballot, he says, really don't have nearly as big an impact as just the confidence they have that their vote will be counted as they cast it. And why our Democratic colleagues are opposed to voter ID is beyond me. We know Jimmy Carter and James Baker III--of course, Jimmy Carter, a former Democratic President; and James Baker III, a former prominent Secretary of State and Treasury Secretary. They had a commission to look at things like voter ID, and they actually recommended that voter ID would be one way to instill public confidence in the integrity of the vote. You have to show your ID when you go through the Transportation Security Administration--TSA--to get on an airplane. You have to show an ID if you are going to buy a pack of cigarettes at a convenience store or six-pack of beer. I mean, we are accustomed to people being required to identify who they are. If you want to get into a Federal building, you have to show an ID. So the idea that we should prohibit voter ID, to me, is ridiculous, and that is one of the provisions in the Democrat substitute bill which is before us. It would prohibit the use of voter ID through mail-in ballots. But that is just the beginning. One of the most outlandish--or I should say on top of what I have already talked about--provisions of this bill is the use of taxpayer funds for campaigns. Well, a lot of companies have matching programs for charitable giving. That is a positive, good thing. If an employee donates to a charity of their choice, many times their company will match that donation dollar for dollar. That is a positive thing. But, here, what happens is, instead of a charity getting the money, it is a political candidate. In other words, our Democratic colleagues are recommending that for every dollar that is donated to a political candidate, the taxpayer kick in an extra 6 bucks. Well, I know some of these campaigns that we have already run in recently get to be pretty expensive campaigns. But can you imagine that the taxpayers be asked to pony up $6 for every $1 that is contributed to the campaign? And is it really fair to ask taxpayers to subsidize the election of somebody they may disagree with? It makes no sense to me. Well, this means that if someone donates $200 to the preferred congressional candidate, the Federal Government could match with $1,200. And it is not the Federal Government; it is the taxpayer, by the way. Then there are the campaign vouchers, which will provide eligible voters with a $25 voucher to donate to the campaign of their choosing. I am not making this up. This is what is in the legislation that, unfortunately, I don't think many people have read or understand. It is easy to imagine a better use of taxpayer funding, whether infrastructure, help for people who still are in need as a result of the COVID pandemic. It could go to crime victims or support a response to a humanitarian crisis at the border, like we are seeing in Del Rio, TX. But, no, our Democratic colleagues want to put it into the political campaigns of the candidates of their choice. Well, in addition to the rotten provisions that are maintained from the previous bill, there is even more. The bill places immense power in the office of General Counsel of the Federal Election Commission. He is an unelected official. It lowers the legal standard to overturn voting laws. And it makes election day a Federal holiday, even though the bill mandates 15 days of early voting, which, again, by the way, is less than the State legislature has provided for in Texas. We have 17 days of early voting. Well, the truth is this is a so-called solution in search of a problem. The truth is there is no voter suppression epidemic. During the Obama administration, their Justice Department brought four lawsuits--four lawsuits--under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. If you thought there was an epidemic of voter suppression, don't you think the Obama administration would have been more active and more vigilant? Again, there is the fact that the 2020 elections saw the highest turnout in 120 years for all racial and ethnic groups. Over the last 4 years, States across the country undertook efforts to keep their elections free from fraud and foreign interference. By the way, one of the conclusions following the 2016 election by the intelligence community was that the dispersed and diffused nature of our elections actually made it harder for Russia to impact the outcome because they would have had to do so in all 50 States. If this was all run out of Washington, DC, and one black box appeared, it would probably be easier for them to concentrate their efforts on one location rather than 50 locations and increase the likelihood of their ability to influence the outcome. Well, we have kicked in--here in Congress--hundreds of millions of dollars to help the States keep their elections free from fraud and foreign interference. But under the Constitution, as currently written, each State has a constitutional authority to govern how their elections are run, and I think it is a good thing--subject to section 2 of the Voting Rights Act if someone commits a foul. In my State, 29 million people are spread out across major cities and small towns alike. And what works well in our State may not make as much sense in a small, densely populated State like New Jersey, or large, sparsely populated State like Alaska. That is why it is important that the States be the laboratories of democracy and try to be responsive to the needs of the people in their particular State, because we are not all the same. I believe the leaders in each State know best the unique circumstances of their constituents, and they are best suited to craft voting laws that prioritize both access and security. A Federal Government hijacking of our State- and local-run election laws will not improve voter confidence in our elections. In fact, it will stir the very fears that Democrats claim they are trying to alleviate. But this isn't really new. It is just a repackaged and new effort to do the same thing, which is to nationalize our elections and run all of them out of Washington, DC, and to discourage commonsense measures, like voter ID, that help bolster public confidence in our elections and diminish the opportunity for people to cheat. Well, no matter how many times we see this rebranded and new version of this Federal takeover of elections, I will continue to fight any effort to take the constitutional authority given to my State to run our own elections. I certainly am not going to turn it over to the National Democratic Party. The Senate will never green light politically motivated attempts to take over America's elections, and that is good thing. And we are not going to go down this road on this new, rehashed, modified, substitute effort to nationalize our Federal elections. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is ironic that I come to the floor to be with my friend, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, with whom I have proudly served and with whom I have worked on many different projects within the intelligence community and the jurisdiction of that committee. But this is one where we clearly see things differently. Mr. Olsen, for most of his career--and it has been a distinguished career--has operated as a nonpartisan public servant. But as Senator Grassley, ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, said at the time he had his hearing there, once the previous administration took office, it was like a switch got flipped and he turned into a partisan warrior. Over the last few years, Mr. Olsen has made a series of serious ultrapartisan statements. Prior to the 2016 election, he said that ISIS supported Donald Trump for President. Following the election, he claimed that the electoral college should be abolished because it is a national security threat. He signed on to a number of letters hysterically criticizing then-Attorney General Barr and the Justice Department, and he failed to disclose these writings and other critical information to the Judiciary Committee during the hearing on his nomination. I believe now, more than ever, it is absolutely critical that the Justice Department and our intelligence community operate free from political influence and bias. But I have no confidence that, if confirmed, Mr. Olsen's partisan switch will get flipped back off. I fear he will continue to pursue his political objectives from within the Department, using the powerful tools of the Department of Justice to pave the way for his partisan political agenda. And lest anybody think these concerns are unprecedented or groundless, let me just point out that we now have a former lawyer with the FBI that has pled guilty for falsifying an application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in the process of investigating an American citizen. He has now pled guilty and is now serving probation, a lawyer with the FBI who erroneously communicated information to the court with which they relied upon to issue a warrant to surveil an American citizen, using the powers of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. And then, just this last week, another lawyer has been indicted by Mr. Durham, the special counsel--somebody who has a distinguished career as a former Federal prosecutor and has worked at a prominent firm that typically represents the Democratic Party. He now has been indicted for lying to the FBI, and it rises out of a conversation he had with a general counsel at the FBI, suggesting that there was some link between the Trump administration--or Trump organization and a criminal-linked Russian lender called Alfa Bank. The indictment says that Michael Sussmann lied about the capacity in which he was providing this information to the FBI. But, in fact, what he did is prepare white papers using confidential information obtained from a technology client and fed that to the FBI while he claimed to be just a good citizen wanting to pass this information along when he was actually on the payroll of the Clinton campaign. And, obviously, then talking to the press, leaking this narrative to the press, this has, I think, contributed to this false narrative of somehow that the Russians colluded with then-Candidate Trump in order to win the election. There has been no evidence at all, whether if you look at the inspector general report--Inspector General Horowitz--about the now debunked Steele dossier, which supposedly was the basis upon which the FBI opened their investigation. So what we are talking about is people in positions of trust and confidence in the U.S. Government abusing their power, lying to the FBI, and lying to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to pursue a partisan political objective. Now, I have no idea what Mr. Olsen would do, but I don't think we can take any risks, given the fact he has now turned into a partisan warrior. We have got ample examples of people who, perhaps against their better judgment, have thrown into this resistance attitude and simply forgotten their professional responsibilities. And when it comes to the intelligence community and national security, we don't need any more partisan warriors in these positions of trust. These should be nonpartisan professionals. So I don't think Mr. Olsen has certainly satisfied me or many of my other colleagues that he can flip that partisan warrior switch off. For that reason, I object.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, what I was referring to earlier are examples of abuse of power by people in the U.S. Government who are in a position to do things to average citizens that, frankly, if they can do them to powerful individuals like candidates for President or our sitting officeholders, what is the little guy supposed to do? If people are so blinded by their partisanship or their desire to get somebody that they violate their oath, they violate the law, and abuse power, what is the average man and woman supposed to do? You know, it reminds me a little bit of the hearing that we had just a couple of days ago in the Judiciary Committee, where this monster named Larry Nassar, an Olympic physician for 18 years, systematically and routinely sexually assaulted and abused young female Olympic athletes. And for years, these Olympic athletes tried to get the FBI to investigate their allegations against Dr. Nassar. And it took an extended period of time--I think it was a year and a half--before the FBI actually undertook the investigation. But it took a couple of our colleagues--people like Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut, Senator Jerry Moran from Kansas--in order to stay on this issue until, finally, this monster, Dr. Nassar, was charged with crimes and convicted and now is going to serve in prison the rest of his life. But it haunts me to think, if these elite Olympic athletes whose names are known all around the world could not get the government to respond to their assault and to do them justice, what chance do the rest of us have? I am not worried about Members of Congress; I am worried about my 29 million constituents. And so the examples I gave of Mr. Clinesmith, who lied to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to get a warrant to illegally surveil an American citizen--that is an abuse of power that causes me very grave concern. And when I read the indictment of Michael Sussman lying to the FBI about his connection to the Clinton campaign, while he compiled information that was confidential, gave it to the FBI, claimed to just be a good citizen and not representing any client, when in fact he was on the payroll of the Clinton campaign, and he was systematically leaking this information to the press to feed this narrative about Russian collusion--which has obsessed Congress and the country for years. And now we know there is no factual basis for the allegations against then-Candidate Trump or then later President Trump. The Russian collusion narrative was not true, but it was fed by partisans who abused their power in order to gain politically. So I don't know Mr. Olsen that well. Like I said, I know he has had a distinguished career. But something clearly snapped when he became a partisan lawyer. And I simply do not have confidence that he will not abuse his power in pursuit of his partisan aims. There are better people that the President could nominate to serve in this sensitive position, and I will not, in good conscience, agree to simply allow somebody with this sort of track record to be confirmed. And as my colleagues know, the majority leader has all the tools he needs at his disposal to have a vote on the Senate floor on this nomination. But it shouldn't be done by unanimous consent. It shouldn't be done outside of the public attention because there are so many things competing for people's attention. I think this is a debate and a conversation we need to have about powerful public officials abusing their power for partisan political gain. What chance does the average American have if they will abuse that power to go after powerful public figures like a candidate for President or an incumbent President of the United States?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks before the vote.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, our friends across the aisle are moving full steam ahead with what I think is fairly described as a reckless tax-and-spending spree, which is chock-full of unnecessary, unwarranted, and flatout unaffordable policies. Remember that we had to spend a lot of money--borrowed money--during the COVID crisis, which we did on a bipartisan basis because it was a national--indeed, an international and global emergency. But as we continue to get people vaccinated and put the pandemic in the rearview mirror, our colleagues simply want to continue spending money that we don't have to pursue their ideological and political agenda, to grow the government, to intrude more in people's lives, and to take more of what they earn rather than let them spend it as they see fit. Our colleagues want to impose crippling tax hikes on job creators at a time when many of them are still digging out of the recession that was part of the pandemic. They want to dole out permanent welfare without requiring able-bodied men and women to work. They want to discourage medical innovation through price fixing and implement a range of items from their far-left wish list. After charging nearly $2 trillion on the taxpayers' credit card earlier this year, our Democratic colleagues are back at it for round 2. And this time, they are going all out. That is especially true when it comes to the energy sector. Over the past few years, we have seen no shortage of unrealistic and downright harmful policies to reduce carbon emissions. Now, there is a smart way to do it, and there is a self-defeating way to reduce emissions. One is to reduce the use of coal and increase the use of things like natural gas, which has much lower carbon content than coal. And we are doing that, and we have reduced emissions as a result. But our colleagues have proposed everything from the socialist paradise that is the Green New Deal to more targeted but no more realistic net zero emission bills. This reckless tax-and-spending spree compiles the most outlandish proposals into one of the greatest hits albums. The hallmark of this legislation is a full range of tax increases on the fossil fuel industry, which ultimately are passed along to consumers and contribute to inflation and the increased costs that they have to pay in order to fill up at the pump. Whether we are talking about energy, agriculture, or any other industry, higher taxes always mean higher prices for consumers. It is inevitable. Businesses can't just take the increases as a hit to their bottom line. They might raise taxes, lay off employees, postpone expansion plans, or implement all of the above, but that is exactly what this proposal would spur when it comes to the energy sector. It increases taxes already paid by energy companies on income earned in the global marketplace and subjects energy employers to double taxation of their foreign income. It also adds a brand new tax, the Superfund excise tax, which was eliminated 25 years ago--all in pursuit of more revenue to grow the size of the government. Our friends across the aisle want to resurrect this tax and force energy companies to pay more on every barrel of crude oil that is sold. Once again, the ultimate burden won't be on those companies. It will fall to consumers who are already struggling to keep up with inflation. Gasoline prices are up 42 percent over last year. Natural gas is up 21 percent. Families in Texas are paying more on everything from electricity to groceries, to vehicles. This smorgasbord of higher taxes will only drive up costs for working families and hurt the very job creators we have been trying to help, over the last year and a half, dig out from under COVID-19. You have to wonder, if these policies are going to hurt working Americans and the economy, who benefits? Well, for starters, our geopolitical adversaries will benefit. The higher cost on domestic crude would, once again, make the U.S. reliant on imports of oil and gas from overseas, from countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela perhaps. President Biden unintentionally demonstrated the hypocrisy of this approach when he pushed, earlier this year, to beg OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, to increase production overseas to bring down oil prices here in the United States. In other words, he doesn't want American oil and gas producers to produce oil and gas. He wants the Russians and the Saudis to do it to help us bring down prices here in America. It is just crazy. It makes no sense. If the President is worried about affordable energy, he needs to quit pushing policies that will drive up the cost for consumers at the pump. Other big winners include wealthy electric vehicle drivers. The sort of subsidies that are contained in this proposed package includes a tax credit for electric vehicle purchases, even if these cars are made--you guessed it--in China. And it is subsidizing--it is taking middle-income taxpayers' money and giving it to people who are buying expensive cars because they are incentivized by the tax credit. Meanwhile, we have 280 million cars on the road in America that still depend on oil and gas in order to function because they have, yes, an internal combustion engine. On top of that, a bigger tax credit is given to electric cars built in union shops. Now, why would you favor a political supporter like organized labor? Well, I think the answer may be pretty obvious. Maybe union-built electric vehicles are more green than other electric vehicles or maybe it is a favor doled out to a special interest group by my friends on the other side, to a political constituency. As a reminder, unlike gas-powered vehicle drivers, EV drivers don't even pay anything for the highways that they drive their car on. They don't pay into the highway trust fund, which comes out of the cost of a gallon of gas, to help maintain our roads and bridges. So our friends across the aisle just keep on coming with tax breaks for the well-off and the well-to-do in a way that will burden hard- working Texans and Americans. I support efforts to reduce carbon emissions to preserve our air, land, and water for future generations, but these efforts shouldn't pick winners and losers, especially when wealthy Americans are reaping the benefits at the cost of blue-collar workers. Like the rest of the reckless tax-and-spending spree proposal, the cost of this energy proposal far exceeds any benefit. It will drive up costs for American families, hurt our global competitiveness, ultimately hurt our allies that depend on exported LNG to provide energy diversity, and it will empower our adversaries. So there is no reason to stick taxpayers with the bill for these unnecessary policies when there are better ways to keep costs for consumers low while protecting our environment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill's purpose is to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in San Angelo, Texas, as the ``Colonel Charles and JoAnne Powell Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the crisis along our southern border is bad and has been getting worse since Joe Biden became President. Last month, more than 200,000 migrants crossed our southern border-- the second month in a row that we have seen a number that high. Since President Biden raised his right hand and took the oath of office on January 20, Customs and Border Protection has stopped more than 1.2 million border crossers. That is nearly triple the total number it was at this point in the Obama administration, and more than eight times the number of migrants stopped at this point during the Trump administration. These numbers have real consequences. Migrants are exploited, abused, raped, and some die on their dangerous trips to our border. Once they arrive, Border Patrol, local law enforcement, and nongovernmental organizations are expected to do a lion's task with a mouse's resources, and the surge of resources to migrants leaves serious security vulnerabilities that are exploited by cartels and criminal organizations. Even before this current crisis with Haitians, Border Patrol officials have told me, just to deal with unaccompanied children and the number of migrants coming to the border, that as many as 40 percent of the Border Patrol have had to leave the front lines of protecting the border, which means that the drug cartels can simply exploit those gaps in the Border Patrol's security line in order to move illegal drugs into the United States that, last year alone, took the lives of more than 90,000 Americans by overdose. As though things weren't challenging enough already, the city of Del Rio, with a population of 35,000 people, has been flooded by a group of nearly 15,000 migrants. Can you imagine? A city of 35,000 sees this huge human tsunami of 15,000 migrants almost exclusively from Haiti. By the way, this ought to demonstrate that this is not just a regional phenomenon. I know the Vice President went down to Central America and said that she talked to the Presidents of the Central American countries, of the Triangle countries, and said: Please don't send your people to the United States. Meanwhile, the green light was on at the border as a result of the refusal to enforce the basic security laws that were put in place by the previous administration. In fact, it looks like the guiding principle of the Biden administration was, whatever the previous administration did, we are going to undo it. They forgot to put an alternative plan in place, and so the people keep coming--1.2 million migrants, just so far, since the Biden administration began. Well, migrants have now set up a camp under the International Bridge in Del Rio, in 100-degree temperatures. And they have been so brazen that they literally have gone back and forth across the river to Mexico to purchase supplies--food, water, or whatever. They have been able to go back and forth virtually at will. Border Patrol and State and local officials have been working around the clock to ease the humanitarian crisis that President Biden and his policies created, and they are being overwhelmed. As I said, Del Rio isn't a huge city with unlimited resources. It is, roughly, 2\1/2\ times the size of the migrant group, and like other border communities, the city has experienced a one-two punch in the last year and a half because of COVID-19. First came the pandemic and a full range of new expenses. Then the strain was compounded by the restrictions on so-called nonessential cross-border travel, which has been in place for a year and a half. Pre-pandemic folks from Mexico, if they had the proper paperwork, would travel across the border to shop, to eat, and to visit family members, and they were huge economic drivers of our border communities. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas estimated that, prior to these restrictions, between 40 to 45 percent of all retail activity in Laredo, for example, was attributable to Mexican nationals. That has dried up completely. Leaders in Texas, like the ones I met with in Brownsville last week, are struggling to understand the contradiction between the Biden administration's two different approaches. On the one hand, the administration is saying it is too dangerous for Mexican nationals to visit families in Texas or to shop in our stores because of the virus; but on the other hand, the administration is allowing 1.2 million migrants to cross our borders--untested, unvaccinated, most of whom are simply waved on through into the interior of the United States and told to appear at a future court hearing, which most of them will never show up for. We simply don't know what kind of risks these untested, unvaccinated migrants who are being waved into the interior of the United States could pose to communities in Texas or across the country. Just last week, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that, without stronger COVID-19 testing measures in place, the Department is putting everyone--migrants, Border Patrol agents, Customs agents, and the local communities along the border--at greater risk. Still, the Biden administration has refused to take any sort of serious action that would stop the flood of humanity coming across our border. Yes, they have paid lip service. They have said: Don't come. Meanwhile, the migrants are on the phone, talking to family in the United States, or they are simply watching American TV as the flood of humanity continues to come across the border without there being any real consequences. On Friday, the current surge of primarily Haitian migrants became so overwhelming that the Biden administration closed a legal port of entry in Del Rio, as well as interior checkpoints. For those of our colleagues who have actually been to the border, they know that Customs and Border Protection checks people as they enter the country at the border, but there are also interior checkpoints because we know many people aren't identified until they are found in an 18-wheeler trailer or embedded in some sort of hiding place or when the drugs that people are trying to smuggle into the United States are found often at the interior checkpoints. Because of the flood of humanity coming across the border because the Border Patrol at Del Rio was so overwhelmed, 400 Border Patrol agents were reassigned from other places, including interior checkpoints, to come help deal with the masses. That created a huge vulnerability for the drug smugglers and human smugglers. So-called nonessential travel was already shut down, but the administration bungled the entire situation so badly that they had to shut down essential trade and travel as well. Last Friday, I spoke with Border Patrol Deputy Chief Manny Padilla-- somebody I have known for years and who used to be the chief of the Rio Grande Valley's sector of the Border Patrol. He told me that the main focus at the time, of course, was trying to deal with the humanitarian crisis of getting food, water, and sanitation to these individuals. Once the most urgent humanitarian needs are met, the processing and potential removal of migrants will move more quickly. So far, a few thousand migrants have been moved to other Border Patrol sectors for processing. Again, because Del Rio's sector was overwhelmed, they had to bus them as far away as Arizona just to process people through the border. Some have already been returned to Haiti, and in the coming days, we can expect more flights to move some of the thousands of migrants back home. The Department of Homeland Security has claimed that they will use title 42, a public health authority, to expel the vast majority of migrants. But the administration needs to be honest with us. Will they use this title 42 authority--again, to protect the public health--to expel migrant families, too, and not just single adults? If not, will the Department use the expedited removal authority to swiftly remove these migrant families and, in doing so, deter others from coming? Or will they essentially continue to wave people through, encouraging even more migrants to make their way to the border? And will these migrants that they do have remain in custody until a removal decision is rendered? We know that catch and release simply doesn't work. It can be exploited to the point where people know that, if we don't detain them, we will give them this notice to appear--sometimes called, in Spanish, a permiso--and they will be sent into the interior of the United States, many of whom are never heard from again. The Department of Homeland Security and the administration need to back up their proposed plans of dealing with this crisis--and their public statements--with real and immediate consequences to cut off the flow and deter future immigration. There is a clear and urgent need for Congress to take action, and contrary to what our Democratic colleagues believe, blanket amnesty is not the answer. That will serve as an additional magnet for illegal immigration. Rather than address the crisis at hand, our Democratic colleagues have spent the bulk of this year figuring out how to bend the rules of the Senate to grant citizenship to millions of people who have entered this country illegally. Their plan would have provided legal status to people who entered the country as recently as this year, as long as they would have been 18 years or younger when they had arrived. It would have turned our ag sector on its head by legalizing unlawfully present farmworkers with absolutely no provisions to ensure that our agriculture producers would have access to a stable workforce. And it would have legalized millions of people with temporary protected status without even addressing the fact that this temporary program has been in existence for three decades. There is a reason that Senate Democrats tried to pass a partisan bill by using the arcane budget procedures instead of the normal legislative process. These policies do nothing to alleviate the crisis that has existed on the border since Joe Biden became President. They fail to address the underlying reason people are unlawfully present and living in the shadows in the first place, and they literally reward illegal immigration. It is unfair to those immigrants who follow our laws and wait patiently in line. Yesterday, the Senate Parliamentarian confirmed what we already suspected, and that is that our Democratic colleagues will not be able to use budget procedures to grant citizenship to millions of undocumented immigrants in a purely partisan budget reconciliation bill. Our Democratic colleagues have said they have a plan B, and while I haven't seen any details about what that might entail, I seriously doubt it will succeed. I hope our colleagues will respect the decision made by the neutral, unbiased guidance of the Parliamentarian and avoid nuking the rules of the Senate to achieve a partisan political goal. In the meantime, there is a clear and urgent crisis on our southern border, and President Biden has proven that he is either unwilling or incapable of addressing it. But Congress also has a duty to take action that can only be done in a bipartisan way. It is not too late for our friends across the aisle to abandon their partisan amnesty plan and work with us on this side to address the actual crisis at hand. And I have a suggestion about where we can start. Last April, Senator Sinema, the senior Senator from Arizona, and I introduced the Bipartisan Border Solutions Act to address this unfettered flow of immigration. I have been proud to also work--we have both been proud to work with two friends and colleagues in the House--Congressman Henry Cuellar, a Democrat, and Tony Gonzales, a Republican. So it is literally a bipartisan and bicameral piece of legislation. Perhaps it is because the four of us live in and represent border States, we have spent time listening and learning from the men and women who safeguard our border and those who care for migrants and those who live in these border communities that are disproportionately impacted. There are a lot of people who talk about what has happened at the border who have never even been there. They inaccurately characterize border communities as unsafe and lawless. They villainize the Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies for actually enforcing the laws that Congress has passed. And they propose blanket solutions to the complex challenges that exist, which would do far more harm than good. The fact is, the border is a beautiful, safe, and vibrant region. The men and women who lead and protect these communities are doing everything in their power to fairly and humanely respond to the crisis, but they are simply being overwhelmed and asked to do something that is the Federal Government's responsibility. That is why our legislation is important. It would streamline the processing of migrants in regional processing centers that would provide new protections for unaccompanied children, one-third of whom have been lost--lost--because they have been placed with sponsors, and when the Federal Government tries to follow up and find out how they are doing, a third of them never respond, and they are lost to the system. Our bill would also expedite legal proceedings and ensure that we have enough immigration judge teams, asylum officers, and staff to do things the right way. A number of groups have endorsed the bill, not partisan groups, and it constitutes a simple starting point that Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on. Democrats cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the humanitarian crisis on our southern border. To borrow a phrase from a sign held by one Del Rio resident last week: ``No more optics. We want action.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we are back in session after a busy August, and we are hitting the ground running in the U.S. Senate. This week, congressional committees have heard from top Biden administration officials about the disastrous withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan. In the months to come, there will be more questions about the decisions that led to the collapse of that country and how the administration plans to protect the American people from terrorist threats moving forward. You know, the whole premise of our going to Afghanistan in the first place was to deny vacuums that could be filled by terrorist organizations like al-Qaida and ISIS and thus represent a threat to the homeland not only of people in Europe and in the region but also to the people here in the United States. Some called 9/11/2001 a failure of imagination because we never imagined that terrorists overseas would plan and execute a terrorist attack that would kill 3,000 Americans using 2 airplanes to fly into the World Trade Center. So now, with the embarrassing and disastrous withdrawal by the Biden administration of our troops from Afghanistan, the question is, How long will it take the terrorists to reconstitute themselves and present a clear and present danger to not only the region but also the continent of Europe and the United States? But for right now, we deserve and the American people deserve answers and accountability. And it is not just these 13 marines who lost their lives in Afghanistan; other American servicemembers have lost their lives and literally their limbs to try to deny a safe haven to terrorist organizations like al- Qaida and ISIS. I worry that they may worry that their sacrifices may have been in vain if, in fact, these terrorists occupy this vacuum which has now been created with a very hospitable Taliban, which was responsible for hosting al-Qaida in the first place. I worry that these troops feel like their sacrifice has been in vain. But I want to assure them that they did what they were asked to do by their Commander in Chief with honor and respect and great personal sacrifice. And no matter what happens going forward, nothing will ever change the respect and the honor that we have for them and their service.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in the final days of the U.S. military's presence in Afghanistan, our country suffered a devastating loss. Thirteen servicemembers were killed in a terrorist attack at the airport in Kabul, marking the deadliest day for the U.S. military in more than a decade in that country. These young men and women, all between the ages of 20 and 31, were taken from loving families--parents, siblings, spouses, fiancees--even a baby on the way. In Laredo, TX, on Monday, I had the solemn honor of attending the funeral for one of these heroes and offering my condolences to his family. U.S. Marine Corps LCpl David Lee Espinoza was only 20 years old when he lost his life last month, but he represented the very best of the Marine Corps, the U.S. military, and the very best of America. From childhood, he dreamed of serving in the military. He joined the Marines right after high school to serve his country and to protect our freedom. And last month, he made the ultimate sacrifice in service to that mission. The pride in this young marine and the gratitude for his service and sacrifice was visible throughout the Laredo community. Driving through Laredo from the airport, the streets were lined with folks, including schoolchildren holding up American flags in honor of LCpl Espinoza. Veterans from across the State proudly stood outside the entrance to St. Patrick Catholic Church to pay tribute to their fallen brother. And across the street, a giant American flag hung from the ladder of two fire trucks. I attended the mass, officiated by Bishop James Tamayo, and paid my respects to David Espinoza's family and other members of his family. There is nothing we can do to bring back LCpl Espinoza, but we can ensure that his service and sacrifice, and that of the other servicemembers killed that day, will never be forgotten. I join those across the country who are mourning the loss of their heroes and honoring the sacrifices they have made for our freedoms. To me, one of the most unique things about the U.S. military--this is not just about our freedom. They were protecting the rights and the freedom and the dignity of people on the other side of the planet. Our Nation is forever grateful to these young men and women and their loved ones who made unfathomable sacrifices for our freedoms.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we also have a fast-approaching government funding deadline. To be specific, we have about 16 days before we will be knee deep in a government shutdown unless Congress appropriates money to keep the lights on. Following a year and a half of economic instability, there is no justification to unleash even more uncertainty on our economy and on hard-working American families. Then, on top of that, we are told that our Democratic colleagues intend to pass a $3\1/ 2\ trillion--probably closer to $5 trillion--reckless tax-and-spending- spree bill, otherwise known as reconciliation. You know, during the last year, during the COVID-19 crisis, we worked very well together because we knew this was a national emergency that did not respect political parties or ideology or persons, and we had to do everything we could on an emergency basis to help. But that emergency is quickly getting in our rearview mirror, and our Democratic colleagues seem to be determined to continue to recklessly spend borrowed money that will have to be repaid by the next generation of Americans and to raise taxes to the highest level in recent memory, thus compounding the risk not only of inflation, which is a regressive tax on working families when the food they put on the table, the gasoline they buy, and the appliances they buy all are seeing prices going up at very quickly escalating levels. There is a real danger that this sort of reckless tax-and-spending spree will have a very negative effect not only on them but also on our economy more generally. For months, we know our Democratic colleagues have been debating back and forth about how much they are willing to spend on a liberal wish list. The chairman of the Budget Committee initially floated a staggering figure of $6 trillion. Now, I never dreamed that in my lifetime--certainly in my service here in the U.S. Senate--I would ever vote for a trillion-dollar bill, but I did during the emergency called COVID-19 because I thought it was necessary. But this kind of reckless spending is not necessary. This is an ideological juggernaut to try to achieve things to transform this country into some western European social democracy--social welfare state. Well, after months of negotiating amongst themselves, our Democratic colleagues have now settled not on a $6 trillion figure but on $3\1/2\ trillion. It is still a shocking number. Nonpartisan budget experts, as I indicated, said the actual cost would end up closer to $5\1/2\ trillion, so don't be fooled by this so-called appearance of self- restraint. This plan is chock full of damaging tax hikes, permanent welfare with no work requirements, Green New Deal climate mandates, and a laundry list of socialist policies. A party-line vote just before the recess laid the groundwork for the biggest government spending bonanza in American history, but now some of our Democratic colleagues are experiencing a little buyer's remorse, perhaps given the rapidly approaching date for the 2022 elections, and they are expressing some remorse or hesitation before swiping the taxpayers' credit card once more. Senators Manchin and Sinema have both voiced their opposition to the extreme $3\1/2\ trillion figure. Earlier this month, Senator Manchin wrote an op-ed explaining why he won't support such irresponsible spending. Our colleagues ought to read it and to consider his arguments. He said Democratic leaders in Congress have proposed passing ``the largest single spending bill in history with no regard to rising inflation, crippling debt, or the inevitability of future crises.'' The fractures in the reckless tax-and-spending spree aren't just deepening in the Senate; House Democrats are beginning to wring their hands, trying to figure out if they can justify such extreme spending and taxing. And I must say it certainly will require some creative thinking. Trillions more in borrowing when American families are already being pummeled by inflation; a sweeping amnesty with no effort to control the growing immigration crisis at the southern border; tax hikes on American families and small businesses--our Democratic colleagues are proposing the most extreme policy proposals that one might imagine in this one massive bill. So getting their Members on board is half the battle, but we are now seeing the internal debates and discussions among Democrats wondering if this is the wisest course of conduct, because there is no doubt about it--this is a massive amount of money, and Democrats are going to have to raise the debt ceiling by themselves if they want to write a check that big. This is where things get a little kooky. Even though this is a partisan spending spree, our friends across the aisle expect Republicans to join them in raising the debt ceiling, claiming that this should be a bipartisan effort. But it is clear Democrats don't require Republican support. They can attach this credit increase to the tax-and-spending-spree bill and pass it with only Democratic support. The only problem is, they don't really want to own it. They want political cover. They want us to help them pull the pin out of the economic grenade that they are about to toss in the laps of the American people. When this reckless tax-and-spending spree inevitably blows up, they want to be able to blame someone else. They want plausible deniability. But it is not going to work that way. Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, and folks on our side of the aisle have made it crystal clear on that point for months. If they want to spend alone, they are going to have to address the debt ceiling alone. Our Democratic colleagues can't cut Republicans out of the process when it is convenient and then beg cooperation when they need someone else to blame. I have no doubt that our colleagues across the aisle will come up with a host of gimmicks to try to get Republicans on board. Some have suggested threatening to shut down the government or withholding critical disaster relief. To be absolutely clear, folks on our side of the aisle do not want a government shutdown. The American people and our economy are already experiencing enough pain. In my State of Texas, we suffered enough natural disasters for me to understand how critical it is to get disaster relief out the door as quickly as possible. Communities impacted by hurricanes and wildfires do not deserve to be treated as political pawns on a chessboard. If Democrats want to charge $5\1/2\ trillion to the taxpayers' credit card, they will have to increase the credit limit themselves, and they can do it by themselves with the $3\1/2\ trillion social welfare bill, and they can't treat disaster victims and government funding as hostages. Our Democratic colleagues already went on one partisan spending spree earlier this year--an additional $1.9 trillion under the guise of providing COVID relief, when only about 10 percent of it actually addressed COVID. That has fueled, in the opinion of people like former Democratic economists, office holders--Larry Summers, for example, who said that we are risking a growth of inflation, which will raise prices on commodities and things that people need in their daily lives in order to live and thus form an invisible tax. As it stands today, our debt is roughly 107 percent of our gross domestic product--$28.7 trillion and counting. Most of us can't imagine what a trillion dollars is, much less a billion dollars, but it is roughly $28.7 trillion. And the sad news is, somebody is going to have to pay that back--somebody. I believe it is simply immoral for us to continue spending, borrow money, raise the debt, and expect future generations to pick up the tab. We know, at the same time, families are being hammered by inflation, as I said, and small businesses are still trying to lure employees back to work. So we are not going to assist with an encore performance of the partisan spending spree that we saw earlier this year. If our Democratic colleagues believe this partisan tax-and-spending spree is a wise investment for the American people, they are going to have to sell it to the American people and up the credit limit on their own. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill's purpose is to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the United States Army Dustoff crews of the Vietnam War, collectively, in recognition of their extraordinary heroism and life-saving actions in Vietnam.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I voted for Mr. Davis's nomination in the Judiciary Committee and I support it. But I think the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my friend from Illinois, could help me try to resolve a problem that I have primarily with the chief law enforcement officer of the United States; that is, the Attorney General. The Attorney General simply will not answer his mail. Let me explain. Back in March, I wrote a letter to the Attorney General urging him to conduct an investigation of a chemical company named Avantor and their role in the opioid epidemic that is sweeping America and the planet. In 2020, 93,000 Americans died of drug overdoses, with 69,000-plus of those from opioids, including heroin. Avantor is a leading producer of a chemical precursor known as acetic anhydride, a key chemical used to convert opium to heroin. Avantor's product has been used extensively by drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations with the apparent knowledge of Avantor officials, who have taken inadequate measures to prevent the diversion of this chemical, particularly in Mexico. Alarmingly, Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta holds millions of dollars in Avantor stock, and her father sits on the board of that company, raising serious ethical issues. As I said, I simply want the Attorney General to answer my letter. I sent a letter to him asking about the investigative status of Avantor and its involvement in the facilitation of heroin production, but have yet to receive a response more than 4 months later. In light of the serious issues that I have raised in this letter and the lack of a response from the Justice Department, I placed a hold on this nominee and will not lift my hold until I receive a sufficient response. So I object.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Illinois, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, could resolve this issue in the next hour; and I would lift my hold if he would simply ask the Attorney General of the United States to answer my letter, which I sent 4 months ago, which we have received no response to. Drug overdoses have taken the lives of 93,000-plus Americans in the last year alone. Most of those drugs come across the southern border from Mexico, including heroin, which is an opioid, which together with prescription drugs--which we know have been widely abused--is a serious threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the American people. I simply want to make sure that American companies are not complicit in selling precursor chemicals that produce this poison, that is then imported into the United States and has taken so many American lives. This is, as I said, no reflection on the nominee himself. But as the distinguished Senator from Illinois knows, Senators have very few tools, very little leverage to actually get the executive branch to do what they are obligated to do, which is simply to respond to our inquiries and our letters. That is a simple matter. This does not implicate the safety and security of the Federal judiciary, as the Senator knows. This is an administrative position, and we all support the safety and security of all of our judicial officials. So this could be satisfied very quickly and, literally, within the next hour if the chairman of the Judiciary Committee would simply pick up the phone, call the Attorney General, and ask him to answer his mail.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have to respond. For the Senator from Illinois to say that Vanita Gupta has no relationship with Avantor, the company that has been selling this precursor drug into Mexico that is used to manufacture heroin--it is true, she is not part of the board of directors or the administration or the leadership of that corporation, but she literally owns or did own tens of millions of dollars of stock in Avantor. We do not yet know whether she has kept her promise to sell that Avantor stock. She said she would during her confirmation hearing, and we are investigating to see whether she actually followed through and kept that promise. But for one of the chief law enforcement officers of the United States to own tens of millions of dollars' worth of stock in a company that arguably violated U.S. law by selling chemical precursors into Mexico that are used to make heroin that has killed so many Americans through drug overdoses is a serious matter. I would not raise this issue if I did not feel that it was so serious. Again, I think the solution is very simple. But the suggestion that Ms. Gupta has no relationship with Avantor is simply not true unless she has, unbeknownst to us at this point, disgorged the tens of millions of dollars of stock that she owns in that company.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, now that cloture has been invoked on the substitute bill, we are one step closer to completing this product, which has been the subject of bipartisan negotiation with the White House for quite some time. I know a lot of hard work has been put into this, and I want to thank all of our colleagues who have contributed to it. After much anticipation, we finally received the bill text earlier this week. Of course, a lot of it was what we expected to see: funding for roads, bridges, ports, waterways, airports, and broadband. Under normal circumstances, an infrastructure bill would go through a long and arduous committee process before ever coming to the floor. Members of the committees of jurisdiction would have an opportunity to debate and offer amendments and get votes on their proposals to try to improve the bill at the committee level. This provides a very important part of the ability of everybody to be able to participate in the process, one that is denied members of their committees of relevant jurisdiction when a bill comes to the floor already negotiated. One of the challenges is when you have 20 people who agree on something and then they bring it to the floor, and, of course, then the 80 who have not been part of that discussion want to participate and want to try to improve the underlying bill. I hope that now that the cloture on the substitute has been invoked, there will be an opportunity for us to vote on some additional amendments. I have been working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to identify new pay-fors that could be adopted as amendments, and we have come up with some good ideas that I hope can receive votes now, even postcloture. But I want to talk specifically about an amendment that I have worked on with Senator Padilla, the junior Senator from California, to fund infrastructure projects in communities across our country without increasing the deficit. Our amendment simply gives States and local governments the flexibility to use unspent COVID relief funding on infrastructure projects. Right now, there are limitations that we put on that funding. Of course, at the time those limitations or guardrails were put on that funding, we didn't know how long this pandemic would last or what the actual needs were of the various States and local jurisdictions. So qualifying expenses include things that are directly related to the pandemic, like COVID-19 testing sites, vaccine PSAs, and additional bed space for hospitals. But here is the rub: That funding cannot be used on expenses unrelated to the pandemic or items that were previously included in the budget. They must be new pandemic-related expenses. In theory, and at the time, that made a lot of sense. After all, this funding was meant to bolster the fight against COVID-19 in our communities. But not every community has the same need. In many places, the most urgent needs aren't related to the pandemic because they have not been hit quite as hard as others, unfortunately, around the country. Some of their most urgent needs are what we are talking about here today: infrastructure--roads and bridges and the like. We all know that the pandemic has interrupted infrastructure improvements across the country and forced officials to put many of these projects on the back burner. Maintenance, repairs, and construction projects have been put on hold, as you know, until there was enough funding to get things back on track. I have heard from my constituents in Texas--State and local leaders-- who are frustrated by this lack of flexibility with the Federal funding that they have already received or which they expect to receive. They simply like the option--not a mandate, but an option--to use this money when and where it is needed most. But as I say, right now, their hands are tied. Many States and localities have relief funds on hand but no necessary qualifying expenses. They have to look at this big balance in their bank account knowing they can't actually spend it on some of their most urgent needs. That is especially the case in rural parts of the country. In places where COVID numbers are, thankfully, low, leaders don't have the need or the opportunity to spend this money which we have already appropriated on the timeline set within that legislation. They simply don't have a need for the full range of pandemic-related resources that might be necessary in some parts of the country with higher case counts. So the amendment that Senator Padilla and I have offered would simply give leaders in rural and urban areas alike, where appropriate, the option--the option--to spend the funding on necessary infrastructure projects. That can mean widening a highway, making safety improvements on a bridge, or expanding broadband access. Urban areas could even use these funds for public transit improvement projects. State and local leaders know the needs of their community better than any of us here, and they should have the flexibility to spend that money where it is needed most. But, Madam President, I think we have had a recent bit of evidence of how long it takes for Congress to act before the money that we appropriate actually gets to the intended beneficiary. To me, nothing is more exemplary of that than the eviction moratorium. Congress appropriated $46 billion in rent relief, but if you look around the country, many of the intended beneficiaries of that rent relief have not yet seen that money, thus the movement toward extending the moratorium. I know just from my own experience in Texas, after Hurricane Harvey, where Congress appropriated billions of dollars in relief, it has taken, literally, years for the money that come from Washington, DC, to get to the intended beneficiary. One of the biggest benefits of the amendment that Senator Padilla and I have offered is that this money is readily available and does not, again, as I said, add to the deficit or debt, but merely provides them flexibility, which means they will be able to put that money to use more quickly on infrastructure projects. Again, this is not a mandate. This is an option. Any place that has new COVID expenses to cover can and should use the money they have for that purpose. There is no question about that. But we simply give leaders the option to spend relief funds on urgent infrastructure projects that may otherwise go unfunded. Here is the other problem. I know that many of our State and local leaders are sitting on these huge amounts of financial resources that we have appropriated, and they are figuring out: Well, if we don't spend it on something, then the Federal Government is going to claw it back or it may not just qualify for the expenditures that are already authorized. So they will be under a lot of pressure to spend it on things that may be simply operating expenses and may not provide the long-term economic benefit that an infrastructure project would. That is another benefit of giving them this flexibility. It is that it will incentivize them to spend the money on the types of things we would hope they would spend the money on if they don't need it for COVID-19. Back in March, nearly three dozen organizations wrote to Secretary Yellen, the Treasury Secretary, urging her to make transportation infrastructure an eligible expense. They talked about the impact of COVID-19 on transportation revenue and noted that last year, 18 States and 24 localities announced delays or cancellations of transportation improvement projects, totaling more than $12 billion. They also noted that the pandemic impacted every State and community differently, something that should be self-evident, and asked for the flexibility, which they said ``will be critical to ensuring funds are used expeditiously and with maximum impact.'' President Biden's own Transportation Secretary has also suggested as much. In his testimony before Congress, Secretary Buttigieg said that the American Rescue Plan ``has some flexibility in it'' that he thinks could be used to support road budgets that have been impacted. States and cities shouldn't be able to spend this money. They should be able to invest it and in the projects and resources they need the most. This is just simply common sense that I think all of us can get behind. It ensures that money that has already gone out the door, which will not add to our deficit or debt, will be used to the maximum impact before the sunset brings that flexibility and that money, those resources, to an end. And it puts decision making at the local level. Local officials understand better than people in Washington, DC, what they need the most, and this gives them the flexibility to put that money to the most efficient and most effective use. This amendment has earned the support of a broad range of organizations across the country, and I am proud to work with Senator Padilla to craft an amendment that both sides can get behind. Today, I hope this will be one of the amendments to receive a vote on the floor. We have to ensure that infrastructure investments are made fairly and paid for responsibly. A robust amendment process and commonsense bipartisan ideas like this one are the only way to get there. I yield the floor.