every political day. fighting against something that's a reality . they gotto fix it . >> cecil roberts, thank you so very much for your time today at the mnational press club red albeit virtually. happy to have you in person next time. senator manchin, we've got more questions for you on a ton of other topics but you're goingto have to come back . >> i'm happy to do it anytime . >> president robert, thank you very much and when you come back to the press club bring some of those: with you . >> absolutely. >> thank you so much. >> the senate about to gamble in and lawmakers will work on anti-asian hate crimes legislation . at noon eastern to advance the nomination of the securities and exchange mission chair gary gensler to be a member of the sec for

five years has to in honor of the mass shooting in indianapolis. live coverage of his here on c-span2. >> the senate will come to order. the senate will come to order. chaplain doctor black will lead the senate in prayer. >> .. keep our senators surefooted as they travel through these challenging times. lord, lead them safely

over the treacherous heights they must sometimes move. open their eyes that they may see glimpses of truth from your divine precepts that will illuminate their path. lord, remind them that victory comes from you, the god of our salvation. continue to use our senators as guardians of freedom. and, lord, we thank you for the life and legacy of former vice president of the united states walter mondale. we pray in your great name. amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., april 20, 2021. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable alex padilla, a senator from the state of california, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. and under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of s. 937, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 13, s. 937, a bill to facilitate the review of covid-19 hate crimes and for other purposes.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: no. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. mr. schumer: mr. president, last night, the country lost a giant of democratic politics. a kind and revered public servant, a vice president who reimagined the position and

expanded americans' views of who could hold america's highest offices. walter mondale, known to friends and foes alike as fritz, died at the age of 93. as president carter's right-hand man, fritz revolutionized the role of the vice vice-presidenc. there is an old yarn about two brothers. one went off to sea, and the other became vice president. neither was heard from again. that's not view of walter mondale. walter mondale was an uncooperative subject for those vice-presidential comedians. not only was he often the last person in the room with the president when the tough decisions were made, but he became an unofficial ambassador for the administration. his relationship with prime minister begin of israel helped pave the way for a peace treaty between israel and egypt at camp david in 1978. in his ultimately unsuccessful run for the presidency, walter mondale's pick of my fellow new

yorker, the late geraldine ferraro as vice president was an early crack in the glass ceiling that our current vice president kamala harris would eventually shatter. he will be -- vice president mondale will be remembered as a lion of progressive politics, an ardent defender of civil rights, aid to school children, child care, health care, and consumer protections. mondale once said my whole life, i worked on the idea that government can be an instrument for social progress. we need that progress fairness requires. indeed, as mondale said, we need government to make social progress. as we say goodbye to one of our country's most decent public servants, let us follow in his example. now, on a much different subject, today is what you might call a very unofficial american holiday, 4/20. it's as appropriate a time as

any to take a hard look at our laws that have overcriminallized the use of marijuana and put it on a par with heroin, l.s.d., and other narcotics that bear little or no resemblance in their effects either on individuals or on society more broadly. the war on drugs has too often been a war on people, particularly people of color. for decades, young men and women disproportionately young men and women of color have been arrested and jailed for even carrying a small amount of marijuana, a charge that often came with exorbitant penalties and a serious criminal record from which they might never recover, being rejected from job after job because this serious criminal record was on -- because this minor, minor

deviation from the law was listed as a serious criminal record. it makes no sense. it's time for change. i believe the time has come to end the federal prohibition on marijuana in this country, and i'm working with senators booker and wyden on legislation to do just that. my thinking on this issue has evolved. a number of states, including very recently my home state of new york, have legalized the recreational use of marijuana for adults and those experiments by and large have been a success. the doom and gloom predictions when states like colorado or oregon went forward and decriminalized and legalized never occurred. in state after state, through ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments, the american people are sending a clear message that they want this policy changed.

senators booker, wyden, and i are going to continue to work on our legislation, and in the near future, we hope to have a draft of a comprehensive reform effort, not only to end the federal prohibition on marijuana but to ensure restorative justice, protect public health, and implement responsible taxes and regulations. this was the approach taken by legislators in new york. i believe it's the right approach and serves as a model for how we should deal with the issue in congress. hopefully, the next time this unofficial holiday 4/20 rolls around, our country will have made progress in addressing the massive overcriminallization of marijuana in a meaningful and comprehensive way. now, on voting rights. today in the judiciary committee, senators will hear testimony from a number of public officials and experts about the surge in voter suppression laws since the 2020

election, including former georgia gubernatorial candidate stacey abrams. these voter suppression laws, more than 250 proposed laws in more than 40 states, constitute a grave and immediate threat to the very core of our democracy in ways both large and small, they seek to restrict the franchise, often targeting minority communities, younger voters, and dense urban districts. our republican colleagues have tried in vain to defend these laws as meaningful and appropriate protections against voter fraud. in many cases, those attempts have been just laughable. just to take one example from earlier this week, the republican-led montana state legislature passed a law that ends election day voter registration and would no longer allow student i.d.'s to be used as a sole ballot form of identification. just think about that for a moment. what problems are the republicans in montana trying to

solve there? has there been a rash of 40-year-olds showing up with student i.d.'s to commit voter fraud? no, certainly hasn't been. we all know what's going on here. younger voters have been shown to be more democratic, so montana republicans have made it harder for them to vote. it's despicable, just despicable. and these laws are moving through state legislatures all across the country, including the most recent one in georgia, which among other crucial reforms makes it a crime, a crime to provide food and water to voters waiting in line at the polls, even though in minority areas the lines are often much longer because there are fewer polling places. i know my democratic colleagues on the judiciary committee are going to shine a spotlight on all of these efforts, and i applaud chairman durbin for holding this very important hearing today. voting rights are a topic that deserves continued national attention. it's a top priority for this

democratic senate majority. finally, mr. president, you couldn't find a better study in contrasts than the trump administration and the biden administration on so many issues the executive branch is finally returning to competence undoing the damage brought by four years of trump presidency. one important example came last night. beginning in 2017, the trump administration maliciously held back billions of dollars in congressionally approved disaster aid to paperwork, which was devastated by -- to puerto rico which was devastated by hurricanes and the deaths of thousands of americans. this was vicious on the part of donald trump, nasty, so typical of the pettiness and inhumanity of his administration. well, the biden administration has finally ended this appalling delay and will relief the much-needed disaster relief funds that puerto rico has waited for for almost five

years. the release of these funds means that the people of puerto rico can finally and fully rebuild their homes, their schools, their businesses. puerto rico unfortunately has too often been an afterthought to work here in washington. funds that would normally go to any state after a natural disaster like hurricane maria got delayed for years, over the course of an entire administration. puerto ricans are american citizens and should be treated exactly as such when disaster strikes. that's why in the american rescue plan, demed passed the largest, most comprehensive relief package for the people of puerto rico in a long, long time. i'm proud to have worked with my house colleague, particularly my house colleagues, particularly representative nydia velazquez to get that done. prior to the american rescue plan, the federal government had never supported puerto rico's tax credit for low-income workers. we did that for the first time

ever. shockingly, prior to the american rescue plan, only families with three or more children in puerto rico could claim the child tax credit. that seemed to me to be racist in its application. we fixed that and made sure that every family in puerto rico could claim the credit, just like every other american family. so as long as democrats have a majority here in the senate, i'm going to make sure that puerto rico is treated fairly and gets its fair share of support. when it comes to this disaster aid, i am so glad the biden administration is rectifying the issue. i hope we never repeat such a shameful delay. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: the situation on our southern border is bad and getting worse. last month saw overall migrant totals hit a nearly two-decade high. more unaccompanied minors arrived than during any prior month on record. these kids crowded in underequipped facilities, tended by increasingly overwhelmed personnel, have become the heart wrenching face of this crisis. yet, the most resolve, the most strength that this administration has shown on the

border has been their commitment to their talking points, their refusal to call a crisis a crisis. this past weekend the president of the united states himself slipped up and used that forbidden word. but get this -- he was overruled by his own staff. yesterday the secretary said the president didn't intend to describe the situation as a crisis. fascinating. but then yesterday at last we saw this administration take some new action on immigration. finally some proactive steps. memos were issued to immigration and customs enforcement and c.b.p. with new instructions. were they new policies to stem the crisis? no, stepped up enforcement? no. way to fix the administration's

signals that have induced these new waves of vulnerable people to try their luck? no, not that either. here, mr. president, was the big news -- the government will be adopting new, more politically correct rhetoric. under this administration, we'll no longer have illegal aliens, not because they'll secure the border, just because they now will be called noncitizens or undocumented migrants, and so on. these priorities are almost a parody of left-wing governance, not securing the border, not a better plan for the children. just woke proof reading. this is not going to get the job done. now on a related matter, of course the flow of actual people is not our only border security problem. americans are dying and communities are being hollowed

out because foreign drug dealers and profiteers have taken our opioid crisis as a business opportunity. fentanyl and fentanyl analogs that pour into our country impose a staggering, tragic cost. in 2020, the c.d.c. recorded more overdose deaths than any year on record. they attributed the spike primarily to synthetic opioids like fentanyl. my home state of kentucky logged a 50% year-end increase on overdose degdz. -- deaths. fentanyl and its analogs are as toxic and lethal an illegal drug as there is. we're talking about substances that can be orders of magnitude more potent than morphine. customs and border protection say fentanyl seizures jumped more than 70% in fiscal 2020.

they're on pace for another record year in 2021. much of this poison is manufactured in and exported from china. the scope of this crisis is truly staggering, but incredibly some on the political left want to respond to this national crisis by letting the criminal status of fentanyl analogs lapse this spring. people want to let these drugs become legal. they actually want to let these drugs become legal. i'm not making this up. fentanyl analogs are poised to fall off the schedule of controlled substances in just a few weeks. if congress does not act, and some corners of the soft on crime left want us to do nothing. they're unhappy with the sentences that can be imposed on drug dealers as a result.

these people are seriously arguing, seriously arguing that we should let these substances flow even more freely through american streets and american neighborhoods, costing who knows how many additional american lives, to help some drug dealer avoid prison. i understand that even among democrats who say they don't want to decriminalize these poisons, there is some effort to kick the can a few months with a temporary extension so that a soft on crime bill could be crafted and forcibly paired with this step. look, mr. president, these are terrible ideas, just terrible ideas. the right thing to do is obvious. this isn't a trick question. we need to permanently schedule fentanyl analogs, take this permanent step to protect americans and be done with it. we should not just kick the can

down the road for two months or five months or 12 months. we should not let this commonsense step be held hostage for liberal horse trading. we simply need to do the right thing. congress cannot hold american lives and communities hostage to try to grease the skids for drug dealers. continue to ban these analogs is not even a recipe for mass incarceration. the main effect is to cut down on the incoming supply of these poisons by changing the incentives for producers in china and other foreign countries. the department of justice reports that in the last three years only eight people, eight people would have qualified for the mandatory minimum sentences that some people are complaining about. more than anything else, scheduling these terrible drugs is a harm-reduction and prevention tool. it works upstream. it disincentivizes their

manufacturer and their import into our country. too many of our neighbors have already been taken from us, too many communities have already been hollowed out. there's simply no excuse for inaction. it should not just be a republican priority to slam the door on the opioid epidemic in every possible way. this should actually be a bipartisan no-brainer. let's permanently schedule these analogs and keep this poison out of our land and out of our citizens' bloodstreams. now on one final matter, this afternoon president biden is sending his top national security officials to brief members on his misguided plan to abandon the battlefield in afghanistan. as i said when this decision was announced, the enemies that threaten america, our allies, and the people of afghanistan, are not vanquished. taliban retribution and repression and the terror of al qaeda, isis and the haqqani

network will likely only grow after we've left. i know many colleagues on both sides of the aisle share my concerns. i expect that the administration's representatives will face tough questions about the rationale behind their plan for a rushed withdrawal. so, it's appropriate to ask, does the taliban share the administration's commitment to a negotiated solution? , to not harming afghan women and girls, or seeking vengeance on those who work with the u.s. to root out terror? somehow i doubt it. does the administration have a plan for keeping terrorists off balance in the absence of troops and leverage in the region? will it seek to maintain that 2001 aumf that have actually kept our homeland safe for 20

years? how does the administration plan to maintain insight at terrorist activities or ability to strike them without a presence on the ground? to sustain our partners, who are doing the fighting? i've worked hard to find common ground with this administration on foreign policy, but if the white house is serious about making america our allies, and our interests more secure, it will need to start tacking toward a more enduring approach centered on strength, grounded in reality, and not wishful thinking. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i

ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the order of yesterday, the senate recess from 12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the gensler nomination and the senate invoke cloture on the nomination. following the cloture vote, the senate resume legislative session and senate recess until 4:00 p.m. to allow for the all-senator briefing. if -- all postcloture time be considered and expired at 5:00 p.m. following the disposition of the gensler nomination, the senate resume consideration on the monaco nomination that if either nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. finally, that following the confirmation of the vote on the monaco amendment -- nomination,

the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection. mr. schumer: therefore, senators should expect one roll call vote at 2:15 p.m. and two roll call votes at 5:00 p.m. now, mr. president, i understand that there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the leader is correct. the clerk will read the titles of the bills en bloc. the clerk: s. 1216, a bill to extend the scheduling order for scent substances, and to amend the fair labors act. mr. schumer: in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceeding en bloc. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will be placed on the

calendar. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president. is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted . the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, last fall there was a concern among many around the country and many republican voters that if elected, democrats in the house, the senate, and the white house, that they have the whole of government would try to implement massive change, transformative change as it was described. and there was a consistent view articulated by democrats at

other places around the country, oh, that will never happen because joe biden is a moderate and these ideas are crazy ideas. nobody would ever do some of the things that are being talked about. well, mr. president, i have to say that pretty much everything that was predicted is now coming true at least as it pertains to legislation that is being advanced by democrats here in the congress and by the white house. starting, of course, with the massive amount of spending, the massive expansion of the government. we saw that with the coronavirus relief bill which ended up being about $2 trillion that on top of the $4 trillion that congress, in a bipartisan way, last year had put toward coronavirus relief. much of that $2 trillion, in fact, most of it, about 90% of it didn't have anything to do with the coronavirus. only about 10% of all of that spending of nearly $2 trillion was actually related to the

coronavirus. most of it was other things that democrats had wanted to fund. it's been on their wish list, if you will, for some time and an expansion of government. well, if that weren't enough, there is now talk of, quote, an infrastructure bill which would spend on the order of another $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion, again, much of which is unrelated to infrastructure. if you define infrastructure as simply roads and bridges, things that most people think of infrastructure, about 5%, 6% is infrastructure. if you add in broadband and other things, the percentage is higher. but most of it is unrelated to infrastructure. it is $$2.5 trillion to $$3 trillion of financing, some with tax increases, but a lot of it just adding to the debt. just putting it on the credit card and handing the bill to our children and grandchildren,

something that has been routinely done around here for long time. and so, mr. president, what i think people should find concerning is that the worst fears predicted about what the left might do if in charge of this country are, in fact, coming true. and much of this new spending -- and by the way. the infrastructure bill is a first installment. there's another bill to follow, we're told, that would include more trillions in spending dealing with other issues, including health care. so you've got this massive expansion of government, massive amount of new spending, unprecedented, truly unprecedented in history coupled with massive tax hikes, also unprecedented, what's being talked about just in the first infrastructure bill is over $1 trillion in new taxes. so the taxing, spending, borrowing patterns that we

predicted would happen are, in fact, coming true. so add to that, mr. president, other things that were suggested and proposed, you know, throughout the fall, the course of the campaigns and subsequent to that included adding d.c. as a state. so adding d.c. as a state, it's going to pass the house of representatives. i'm not sure it has been voted on today, but it's either been voted on or will be voted on, it will pass the house of representatives. that's a very, very serious, serious proposal, which dramatically changes the united states senate and i believe what the founders intended with respect to the district of columbia. and then you add to that legislation that has already passed the house being contemplated being passed here in the senate that would federalize elections in this country, that would codify ballot harvesting, that would ban, ban voter i.d., photo i.d., something i think most americans

think is a very wise thing to do when it comes to election integrity to make sure the people who are voting actually are who they say they are. voter i.d. is a pretty, pretty important part of that. it would have the taxpayers finance, publicly fund campaigns in this country. i capital imagine the american taxpayers, among all the other things that they have to fans in the government, also want to finance the campaigns that they have to sit through. it would politicize the federal election commission, which in the past has been a balance, three republican, three democrat, bipartisan committee that oversees and regulates elections in this country, so it would politicize it and give the democrats an advantage, a partisan advantage on the federal election commission. so all those things are in the federal -- this elections bill which would transform -- i mean, i'm talking literally transform the way we do elections in this country, which historically and by way of the constitution, the law, have been handled,

administrated at the state level. states have been very involved. what this would do is consolidate more power in washington, d.c., pull the regulars -- regulation of elections up to the federal government, coupled with all the changes that i just mentioned, there is no way, actually no way that even if passed this could be done, implemented in this upcoming 2022 election, which secretaries of state from across the country, including democrat secretaries of state have indicated. so that's another thing that's on that liberal wish list, mr. president, that i mentioned, federal ieferg our elections, taking them away from the states where historically elections have been handled and administered and bringing them here and essentially nationalizing our elections. then there is the green new deal. the green new deal is i believe being introduced again today by a number of democrat senators and house members, something again that would completely change the way that we fuel our

country and ways that would drive up dramatically the cost that an average consumer in this country, average family, what they would have to pay for energy, done through mandates, regulations, heavy-handed government requirements, as opposed to incentivizing some of these things that i think we all agree we should be doing when it comes to cleaning up our environment. but, mr. president, the green new deal is opposite of that. the green new deal is a government, washington, d.c., mandate requirement, heavy-handed, regulatory approach to that issue, and something that has struck fear in the hearts of literally tens of millions of americans since it began being talked about only a few years ago. so those are just a handful on the list of what i would call horribles that the left has been advocating for some time in this country. all of these things, all of

these things could be accomplished if the democrats were able to follow through with another thing that they said they would never do and are now talking about, and if they had the votes would do, and that is to do away with the legislative filibuster, which is a feature of our democracy that goes back literally 200 years to our nation's founding, and something that has ensured through those years that the minority has a voice in our policy-making process, that there is an opportunity for both sides to collaborate, to compromise, and to ensure that there isn't majoritarian rule. the founders were very firm about that idea. they thought there needed to be checks and balances against that, and the legislative filibuster has provided that for 200 years, and it's something that, you know, even though republicans were asked repeatedly during the last four years of the trump presidency by the president himself to get rid of the legislative filibuster,

we refused to do that because we believe it is essential as a feature of our democracy and something that protects the minority in this country, the minority rights, the voice of the minority in our policy-making process, and ensures that we get solutions that ultimately are durable over time because they have been negotiated in a way that requires the input from both sides of the political equation. mr. president, that is something that has been sacred, so sacred that even despite the fact that president trump on 34 different occasions, 34 different occasions asked republicans or probably more -- i would say asked to be a gentle word but essentially said republicans in the senate need to get rid of the legislative filibuster, either by tweet or republic statement, something that he believed was a priority in order to implement his agenda. we resisted that, we resisted that even though we would have benefited from it on numerous occasions when it came to moving legislation through the senate. so for the past six years, we

have had the majority. for the past four years, we have had the presidency up until january of this year, and notwithstanding the constant barrage of suggestions -- again, putting it mildly -- to get rid of the legislative filibuster by a president from our own party, we resisted that simply because we believe the legislative filibuster is such an essential and critical part of our democracy. so here we go, the democrats get elected. they have on countless occasions told me privately, individual senators on their side of the aisle, that no way, we would never do that, we'll never get rid of the legislative filibuster. it's too important. we're not going to do that. in fact, 33 democrats signed a letter as recently as three years ago, basically, essentially saying, ratifying their support for the legislative filibuster, and the suggestion that it could possibly be done away with, suggesting that that would be a

terrible wrong thing to do for this country and essentially coming out strongly, strongly supporting the legislative filibuster. 33 democrat senators here in the united states senate coming out in support of the legislative filibuster. now the shoe is on the other foot, they are on the majority. and the majority for about two months. they are already talking openly, and many of whom have come out and endorsed that idea. and frankly, to be honest with you, mr. president, i think it would have been done already had it not been for a couple of democrats who i think are thoughtful enough, contemplative enough, and revering enough of our institutions in this country not to be run over by the majority on their side and do away with something that is just so critical and so important to our nation's not only heritage and history with but to our fut. if it weren't for that, i think already -- the senator from new

york, the democrat leader, in a new york minute, in a new york minute would get rid of the legislative filibuster if he had the votes to do it, partly out of fear that he will be savaged by his woke left if he doesn't do it, and obviously the president, president biden, who as i mentioned earlier many people thought would govern as a moderate and unifier, and someone who fiercely defended the legislative filibuster as a united states senator, made speeches on this very floor defending fiercely the legislative filibuster is now also talking about getting rid of it in order to implement massive tax hikes, massive spending increases, massive growth in government, expansion of government, unlike anything we have seen in history, including, including the 1930's the new deal. this would dwarf that by comparison. d.c. statehood, federalize our elections, pass the green new deal, all of that, mr. president, all of that could

be done at 51 votes if they could blow up and get rid of the legislative filibuster, and all of those are very real, not hypotheticals, real. these are things that have either already passed or are going to pass the house of representatives, are being considered here on the floor of the united states senate, including today i think the green new deal is being reintroduced. these are legislative proposals that are so far out of the political mainstream in the things that they are contemplating, it's hard to believe. but js as an example of the impact that these tax increases could have, you look at what the tax cuts that were passed, the reform act was passed in 2017 was doing in terms of the economy and the dense that it was having across all sectors, demographic sectors in this country, and up until the pandemic, we had the best economy probably in 50 years. the lowest unemployment rate for

sure. biggest gains in income, wage levels among particularly minority groups. in fact, this is census data from 2019 showing that real median household income hit its highest level ever for african american, hispanic, and asian american workers and retirees. 2019 poverty rate was the lowest in more than 50 years for children at 14.4% and the lowest ever for individuals, 10.5%, for families 8.5%, and for households headed by unmarried women 22.2%. more impressive is that even after ten years of economic expansion, the 2019 gains shattered all records as real household income leapt by $4,379 in 2019 alone, 13 times, 13 times the average annual gains since data were first collected. so the tax policies we have in place, mr. president, work.

and there have been record income gains, especially among lower income americans, poverty rate, as i mentioned, plummeted 11% in 2019, the most in 53 years. things are moving in the right direction. so the question is if it isn't broke, why fix it? and why would we go and increase taxes in a massive way at a time when the economy is growing and expanding, creating better-paying jobs? and what i would argue, mr. president, is that the best solution for anybody in any income group across any ethnic group for improving their standard of living, their quality of life, is a growing, expanding economy that is throwing off better-paying jobs and higher wages. that's what raises the income level, that's what lifts the boat -- boats, mr. president, for every american, and that's what we ought to be looking for. not how much government can we

pull back to washington, d.c., how much can government be for you, but how can we put the right policies in place that put the conditions in place for economic growth that will stimulate the kind of investment that will create those good-taig jobs and start lifting wages across this country? it's about growth in our economy, mr. president. it's about good-paying jobs. it's about higher wages. that's what our higher arguments here ought to be about. instead right now we're talking about growing government and increasing taxes and reversing what i would argue is a lot of the progress that i just mentioned, that from 2019 u.s. census bureau data. so, mr. president, why would we go back on the great progress that has been made and why would we start to contemplate the -- some of these suggestions that i mentioned from the tax hikes,

the spending increases, the federalizing of our elections, the green new deal, repealing the filibuster, which again would consolidate more control, more power in the hands of a few people here rather than keeping it distributed, and it would consolidate more and more power in washington, d.c. and that kind of brings me to the topic for today, which is on that list of horribles and things that would undermine the integrity of our political institutions in a way that these other things would as well, but i would say on a much, much higher, much expanded level, and that is packing the supreme court. which again, people thought was a hypothetical. that was one of those things, now those guys, those guys down there, those democrats, they are not that crazy. there are some moderate democrats out there. there are some people who would stand up and in the way of that and keep something that crazy from happening.

well, it didn't take very long. it only took a week, mr. president, just one week after president biden established his commission to study court packing and other ostensible supreme court reforms, democrat members of congress in both houses have introduced legislation that would actually pack the court. this is no longer a hypothetical. this is colleagues on this side of the aisle, democrats in the house of representatives, that are openly advocating packing the supreme court in the form of legislation. and not just, you know, adding a couple members. adding enough members to give them a majority. to give them a majority on the united states supreme court. now, many people are probably wondering what the crisis was that precipitated this legislation. a crisis so grave that these democrats couldn't even wait for

the results of the president's stacked commission. president biden's commission which is stacked with democrats to give them the result that they want is supposed to report back in somewhere, a time frame of believe about six months. they couldn't even wait for that. they had to introduce a bill that would pack the court. why would they have to do that? the crisis that requires us to immediately add four additional justices to the supreme court, after 150 years of the court at its current size, is that a duly elected republican president was able to get three supreme court justices approved. apparently by that, the republicans stole the court's majority, which i guess, apparently rightfully belongs to democrats, and in doing so, quote, politicized the supreme court and threatened the right of millions of americans, end quote. that's from the democrats' statement about why they have to pack the courts now. this legislation, the bill

senate sponsor says, and i quote, will restore the court's balance and public standing and begin to repair the damage done to our judiciary and democracy, end quote. that from the democrats' sponsors, his statements with respect to this legislation. necessary to restore the court's balance and public standing and repair the damage done to our judiciary and democracy. well, mr. president, there's only one problem, of course, and that is that this supposed problem of confidence in the supreme court doesn't actually exist. a majority of americans approve of the job the supreme court is doing. the supreme court's approval rating actually increased, increased over the course of the trump administration. if the junior senator from massachusetts, who is one of the sponsors of this legislation, is looking to address a crisis of confidence, perhaps he should take a look at congress, whose approval rating is consistently far lower than that of the supreme court. the real crisis,

mr. president, the real crisis we're facing is not a crisis of confidence in the court. it's that democrats are apparently willing to do long-term damage to our democracy for partisan gain. yes, democrats are being hypocritical. and yes, their court-packing proposal is outrageously and transparently partisan. but more than that, it's dangerous, because democrats' court packing would eliminate public confidence in the nonpartisan character of the court. right now the supreme court is generally seen as being at least somewhat above the partisan fray. as the founders intended. a fact that i think is reflected in the court's positive approval rating. while some justices are regarded as more it conservative and some as more liberal demings don't see -- democrats don't see justices as partisan in the way we see politicians as partisan. i think think of one significant

case where supposedly conservative justices sided with the court's liberals and there are plenty of cases where all the supreme court justices ruled unanimously. as justice breyer pointed out in his recent speech condemning court packing, supreme court justices do not fit neatly into conservative or liberal categories, but that perception of supreme court justices as above partisanship would not last long if democrats succeeded in packing the court. just think about it. we've had the same number of supreme court justices -- nine, nine justices, for more than 150 years. 150 years, mr. president. then democrats sweep in announce the makeup of the supreme court isn't to their looking and propose adding four justices, all of them appointed one fell swoop by a democrat president. and that's in addition to any

nominations the president might make in the ordinary course of things. does any democrat sincerely think that after that, any republican would regard the supreme court as nonpartisan? or for that matter, how many democrats would regard the supreme court as nonpartisan? mr. president, just imagine if the roles were reversed. imagine that republicans were proposing to expand the supreme court and add four republican nominated justices. imagine the howls of outrage that would ensue, and rightly so. democrats, the media, the far left, all would rightfully decry the politicization of the supreme court. and yet, democrats expect us to believe that it's democrats -- that if it's democrats who do this, if it's democrats who pack the supreme court, somehow

this move is not a partisan and self-serving one? as justice ruth bader ginsburg said, if anything --, and i quote, if anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that. one side saying when we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of judges so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to, end quote, from the late justice ruth bader ginsburg. or in the words of justice breyer, and i quote, i hope and expect that the court will retain its authority, an authority that was hard won, but that authority, like the rule of law, depends on trust, a trust that the court is guided by legal principle and not politics, end quote. that from justice breyer. and justice breyer noted, and i also quote, structural alteration note evacuated by the

perception of political influence can only feed that latter perception, further eroding that trust, end quote. mr. president, as these two reliably liberal justices make clear, democrats' court-packing plan would do the very thing democrats claim to oppose, and that's to politicize the court. the supreme court would quickly lose its nonpartisan standing and quickly become a joke. democrats cannot possibly think that court packing would begin and end with their move under the biden administration. i can guarantee, guarantee that the next time there is a republican president, a republican congress, republicans would be moving to balance the democrats' power grab by adding a few seats of their own. then the next democrat administration would do the same thing. it wouldn't be long before the supreme court had expanded to ludicrous proportions. 20 justices?

30 justices? maybe more? instead of a respected and separate branch of government, the supreme court would be co-opted by the legislative and executive branches. the separation of powers upon which our entire federal government sl -- is built would be destroyed. mr. president, the consequences of politicizing and trivialize ing the court as packing the court would do would be grave. if americans don't respect the court, they will have little reason to respect the court's decisions or regard them as either definitive or binding. there's been a lot of concern, rightfully so, about the increasingly partisan and contentious nature of our politics. politicizing the court by packing the court would further inflame partisan division and lead to increasingly bitter and dangerous friction in our society.

mr. president, it is deeply, deeply disappointing that democratic leaders and others in their caucus who wish to be seen as serious and responsible policymakers haven't condemned this dangerous proposal to upend a bedrock institution of our democracy. i understand that it may be difficult to stand up to the unhinged and far-left fringes of their party. and it's possible that some of them are reluctant to condemn this proposal because of the partisan advantage it would provide. but anyone who cares about the health of our democracy and the stability of our country should be loudly and clearly opposing any discussion of court packing. i hope that at least some of my democrat colleagues will find the courage to speak up and consign the idea of court

packing to the ash heap of history, where it should have remained. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk may call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: today i come to the floor to talk about what's very obvious on television, the

crisis at the southern border. during the past several months, the american people have watched as a full-blown crisis has developed. it's reached a catastrophic phase, and it's not getting any better. let me reemphasize whatever the biden administration wants to call it, it is a crisis. simply put, the administration is in denial, and that denial has caused a humanitarian and national crisis. for example, border crossings are the highest -- are at the highest level that we've seen in the last 15 years. last month, customs and border patrol, border protection, encountered more than 170,000

people attempting to cross at the southern border. that number includes almost 19,000 unaccompanied children, which is the highest number ever recorded in a single month. the surge has overwhelmed personnel and prompted the biden administration to put out -- would you believe this? -- emergency calls for volunteers. they did that from across the federal government. according to news reports based on recent biden administration e-mails, the administration is recruiting nasa employees to sit with children at border facilities. really? that's nasa. the border crisis is so bad that the biden administration is trying to pull people from nasa and place them at the border.

my fellow senators, this situation is out of control. this is a humanitarian and national security crisis. terrorists, smugglers, criminals have seen this as their golden opportunity, and they're surely taking advantage of it. this can't continue. i've written to the biden administration. i visited the border in person. i've seen overwhelmed facilities. i've heard the calls of cartel members and human traffickers yelling insults from across the rio grande, taunting senators -- yes, taunting senators. senator cornyn and i have

written to the chairman of the judiciary committee strongly urging him to hold border security hearings. during the trump administration, while i served as chairman of the full committee and senator cornyn served as subcommittee chairman, we held no less than 15 hearings on oversight of the department of homeland security and various aspects of our immigration policy. as chairman of the committee during the first two years of the trump administration, i held hearings on immigration topics of bipartisan interest to all committee members, including democratic members. those hearings included oversight of family reunification efforts. in the trump administration decision to end daca programs.

in that very same way with i'm hopeful that chairman durbin will be willing to hold hearings on matters of graduate importance to me and -- of great importance to me and committee members on both sides of the aisle. i'm ready to work with him to put together hearings that address these problems productively. during the easter recess, i instructed my oversight and investigative staff to get a classified briefing from the department of homeland security, customs and border protection, immigration and customs enforcement. that briefing provided important and time-sensitive information that further solidifies my belief that the biden administration's border crisis is a national security problem.

moreover, the biden administration's denial that there is a border crisis is itself a national security problem. you can't solve a problem if you refuse to admit that there is such a problem existing. this head-in-the-sand attitude will cost lives. that's what's so sad about the situation. it's not making anyone's life any better. in fact, it's putting lives at risk, american lives and immigrant lives. yet the administration refuses to solve the problem. earlier in month, i requested the department of homeland security, customs and border protection, and immigration and

customs enforcement after briefing my staff that they brief the full committee, republicans and democrats, on a member level. members need to be fully understanding the national security problems at the border with respect to terrorists, narco-terrorists, human smugglers, and everyone -- every one of their criminal counterparts. we must also be fully read into the methods and means that they use to plan their criminal goals. yesterday, in response to my request of these agencies, the committee had that briefing. what we learned is that the crisis at the border is getting worse, and bad actors are expanding their technological edge to become more efficient at accomplishing their criminal

goals. human smuggling networks, cartels, and other bad actors are continuing to take full advantage of the crisis. as to where we go from here, the biden administration knows it's got a crisis on its hands. it's time to stop the denial and act now to solve this border crisis. mr. president, on another issue, i'd like to address my fellow senators. and this deals with counterfeits and the need for the federal government to modernize its approach to information-sharing. counterfeits pose a danger to the health and safety of consumers. they also infringe on u.s. intellectual property rights and unfairly benefit international

criminals. this will come as no surprise to anyone -- the majority of fake goods come from china and hong kong, and the united states -- well, we're the biggest loser when it comes to international crime and activity. unfortunately, the problems of counterfeits has gotten worse during the pandemic. americans have increasingly turned to e-commerce to buy goods like personal protective equipment, household products, as well as household cleaners, children's toys, and a lot of other items i won't list. criminals use the same e-commerce site to sell their bogus goods. these sites give criminals an

air of legitimacy and make it harder for law enforcement to catch them. e-commerce sites also let criminals create multiple product listings that can trick consumers into purchasing fake goods. unfortunately, when there is money to be made, criminals will find out how to profit and do it at the expense of others, even in the event of a global pandemic. however, there is some good news. we have ways of addressing the problem. last week i introduced legislation that will give the u.s. customs and border protection more authority to share information with rights holders and other interested parties on suspected counterfeit merchandise. this is an issue i first identified as chairman of the senate finance committee when i

investigated counterfeit goods sold online. during this investigation, i discovered that certain u.s. laws prevent customs and border protection from sharing key pieces of information with their private-sector partners. as a result, it's harder for customs and border protection and it's private-sector partners to -- and its private-sector partners to detect and disrupt networks. if they can work together and the how alaud it, it would be a -- and the law allowed it, it would be a lot easier to tackle the problem. steps are being taken to rectify it through the 21st century customs framework. for short, 21-ccf. to improve data-sharing

capabilities in real time. however, without statutory short from congress, in some ways customs and border protection has one hand tied behind its back. so, my bill will get rid of some of these barriers for the agency. it is one small but very crucial step towards a more secure supply chain. sharing information is a simple solution that often gets overlooked. however, it can be an effective tool in creating comprehensive strategy against counterfeit activity. so i'm asking my colleagues to join me in making this legislative fix so that we may create a supply chain that addresses a 21st century problem.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, in a state as big as texas, as the presiding officer knows, having lived in and around houston for a number of years in his previous life, we rely on a strong network of roads and bridges to travel safely and efficiently. we have got i-35 which spans the entire length of texas from north to south and from laredo all the way to dallas-fort worth. much of that stretch, it seems like, it feels like, is

constantly under some construction. there are bridges that are part of people's daily commutes like r.m. 2090 -- excuse me, r.m. 2900. after this bridge was destroyed by floodwaters a few years back, it didn't just create inconveniences in the community but also risks. it can take a firefighter an hour to get around the water. largely the texas department of transportation construction crews didn't waste any time and i was able to join the dedication less than a year later. you heard that right. the bridge was destroyed, and less than a year later, we dedicated the opening of that bridge. and then we have critical projects in works like the forts to ports corridor in i-13 which stretches from fort hood all the way through the gulf of mexico. this will connect our military

installations to our seaports and provide a serious boost to our military readiness. these are more than just roads and bridges. they are vital parts of our daily lives, trade, emergency response, and of course national security. and as we welcome more new texans every day, things are nearing a breaking point. we can't punch above our weight much longer when it comes to our transportation infrastructure. it is time -- and i believe there is a bipartisan belief -- this is the time to invest in our nation's infrastructure. we know historically this has not been a partisan issue. i'm pro-infrastructure, and i imagine every person in this chamber would tell you the same thing, regardless of whether they are from a red state or blue state. we have a strong history of working together to fund the networks of roads, bridges, airports, railroads, tunnels, and the ports that the american people rely on. for example, in 2015, we passed a five-year highway and transit

funding bill called the fast act with overwhelming bipartisan support. it received 83 votes here in the senate and 359 votes in the house, as well as the signature of president obama. this legislation provided the certainty and stability our states need to make long-term investments in critical projects, and it was the first of its kind in more than a decade. last congress, we were poised to pass a similar bill, the environmental -- the environment and public works committee developed a truly bipartisan example of an infrastructure bill that built on the success of the fast act. that was led by chairman barrasso and ranking member carper at the time, but it was unanimous. this legislation included provisions to rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges, improve road safety, protect the environment, and grow the economy. once again, it received broad bipartisan support and passed

the committee with unanimous support. as we know, the last year has brought us untold changes, and unfortunately put this and other legislative goals on pause while we battled covid-19. but now is the time to pick up where we left off and get a strong infrastructure bill signed into law. unfortunately, the proposal by the administration is a far cry from what the country actually needs. for starters, the cost of the plan is beyond comprehensive. the nonpartisan committee for fiscal -- fiscally responsible federal budget estimates said it will cost $2.65 trillion, nearly nine times the size of the last highway bill, nine times. when talking about this proposal, one house democrat said it's going to be a kitchen sink. the founding director of the cornell program on infrastructure policy said well, the administration certainly has a giant definition for what constitutes infrastructure, but

even journalists are making fun of the scope of this plan with one writing maybe the real meaning of infrastructure is what is in our hearts? well, these aren't just jokes. only about 5% of this proposal is directed at roads and bridges, what some have called core infrastructure. in fact, it puts more money toward electric vehicle chargers than the pavement we drive on every day. the proposal funds a long list of programs that are a far cry from what most people consider to be infrastructure. care giving for the elderly and disabled, community colleges, programs that improve diversity and stem careers. all of these are significant and important issues, but they don't belong in an infrastructure bill, certainly not one that proposes to raise taxes on the american people or to create more debt. then there are the most absurd policies that really resemble

the green new deal, which i know was just reoffered by senator markey and congresswoman cortez. more than $200 billion to build more than two million affordable and sustainable places to live, a civilian climate corps, an unrealistic goal of 100% renewable generated electricity. my state is a -- if all you are depending on is renewable energy without appropriate attention to the baseload you need, you are going to end up like we did unfortunately just a couple of months ago with electricity going down due to extreme weather. so, mr. president, i support efforts to rebuild our infrastructure, but this is not an infrastructure proposal. this is really more -- much closer to the green new deal 2.0.

it's an encore to the nearly $2 trillion wish list that our democratic colleagues rammed through on a partisan basis earlier this year. any attempt to claim that republicans won't work with democrats on an infrastructure bill is completely disingenuous because this is not a good-faith attempt at bipartisanship. i would be happy to work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to craft an infrastructure bill that addresses our legitimate infrastructure program -- problems, and i think every person on this side would agree with that. that would include traditional transportation such as roads and bridges, as well as certain forms of nontraditional infrastructure, for example, broadband. the pandemic has really highlighted the digital divide that exists across our country, and as americans have relied on the internet to work for school, telehealth, and a long list of other activities, it has become increasingly apparently that we

are far from where it should be when it comes to broadband access in this country. there is bipartisan support for a bill that addresses our most urgent infrastructure needs without tacking on unrelated partisan priorities. as far as the price tag of the bill, i'm not married to a particular number. the last highway bill that became law was roughly $300 billion. and i think we all agree there is a need to pursue something bigger and bolder, but that needs to be limited to infrastructure. the final price tag of that bill should be the result of bipartisan negotiations between democrats and republicans, not a number handed down from the administration unilaterally. there is one point i want to make abundantly clear. a bipartisan infrastructure bill must exist instead of, not a addition to our democrat colleagues' unrelated priorities. we can't work in a bipartisan way to pass one bill only to

have our democratic colleagues then attempt to jam through on a bipartisan basis on reconciliation another long list of their priorities. in other words, we have to choose, and what i suggest we choose is bipartisan infrastructure legislation. the choice before our democratic colleagues is whether to work together or attempt to go it alone. you really can't have both. we also need to be serious about paying for our infrastructure in a sustainable way. we have just spent trillions of dollars on coronavirus, not to mention a long list of priorities included in the most recent partisan bill. this is not a time to continue the spending spree. investments in our roads and bridges are needed, but we need to figure out how they will be paid for. the massive tax hikes that the president has proposed are not a viable option. the burden will be borne by both

american employers and workers. in previous years, the vast majority of infrastructure building came from the highway trust fund. every state sends dollars to this fund which finances infrastructure across the country. but the formula to distribute the funding is out of date and is facing serious deficits. making matters worse, texans are getting shortchanged in carrying the weight of these shortfalls as a so-called donor state. we get 92 cents back on every dollar we send to washington, d.c. that's not the same treatment for every state. in fact, we receive a lower rate of return than every other state. if we want to have any long-term success in maintaining our roads and bridges, we need to bring this funding formula up to speed as well. unfortunately, the administration proposal fails to do that, and instead of making any repairs to the highway trust fund, it leans on damaging tax

hikes to pay for this broad range of unrelated policies. the president has indeed proposed the largest set of tax hikes in more than half a century. economics 101 would teach you that tax increases aren't a clear and easy way to boost revenue, especially when your economy is already on fragile footing. mr. president, i hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will be willing to work with us to pass a true infrastructure bill, one that will first and foremost improve roads, bridges, airports, and other critical projects all across the country. and notably, we must find a responsible way to pay for this, but tax hikes are not the answer. we have always had this idea in the highway trust fund that user fees, the people that buy gasoline, use the roadways, were the ones to pay for them, not pay for them out of general revenue. and i think we need to continue down this user fee model as

opposed to deficit spending and adding to our debt. again, in closing, let me just say if our democratic friends want to act in a bipartisan way, there are people on this side of the aisle, including me, that would be happy to sit down and start talking. but first of all, our democratic colleagues must agree to abandon their long wish list of unrelated partisan provisions. they can't work with us on an infrastructure bill and then follow it with a reconciliation bill that includes the kitchen sink. a bipartisan bill could rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges is possible. we've done it before, and we can do it again. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.

>> later they will hold confirmation vote on his nomination. also a confirmation vote for lisa monaco to be deputy attorney general. when the senate returns you can watch live coverage on c-span2. >> c-span2 take you live now to the white house where press secretary jen psaki is holding everything. >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]