[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 20, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2046-S2051]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  COVID-19 HATE CRIMES ACT--Continued

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Republican whip.


                             Infrastructure

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last fall, there was a concern among many 
around the country, many Republican voters, that if elected--Democrats 
in the House, the Senate, and the White House--if they had the whole of 
government, they would try to implement massive change, transformative 
change, as it was described. There was a consistent view articulated by 
Democrats in other places around the country that it would never happen 
because Joe Biden, after all, is a moderate. These ideas are crazy 
ideas. Nobody would ever do some of the things that are being talked 
about.
  Well, 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 was 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 percent of it--didn't 
have anything to do with coronavirus. Only about 10 percent of all that 
spending of nearly $2 trillion was actually related to the coronavirus. 
Most of it was other things that Democrats had wanted to fund, that had 
been on their wish list, if you will, for some time, and expansion of 
government.
  Well, if that weren't enough, there is now talk of an 
``infrastructure'' bill that would spend on the order of another $2.5 
to $3 trillion--again, much of which is unrelated to infrastructure. If 
you define ``infrastructure'' simply as roads and bridges, things that 
most people think of as infrastructure, the number that has been used 
is 6 percent of that entire bill is about infrastructure. If you add in 
broadband and a few other things, it gets slightly higher than that.
  The point is that most of the spending in this bill is unrelated to 
infrastructure. It is another $2.5 to $3 trillion expansion of 
government, new spending financed--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 a long time.
  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. Much of this new spending--by the 
way, the infrastructure bill is a first installment. There is another 
bill to follow, we are told, that would include more trillions in 
spending, dealing with other issues, including healthcare.
  You have this massive expansion of government, massive amount of new 
spending, unprecedented, truly unprecedented in history, coupled with 
massive tax hikes, also unprecedented. What is being talked about just 
in the first infrastructure bill is over $1 trillion in new taxes. The 
taxing, spending, borrowing patterns that we predicted would happen 
are, in fact, coming true. Add to that other things that were suggested 
and proposed throughout the fall and the course of the campaigns.

  Subsequent to that included adding DC as a State. So adding DC as a 
State is going to pass the House of Representatives. I am not sure if 
they are voting on it today, but it has either been voted on or will be 
voted on. It will pass the House of Representatives. That is a very, 
very serious, serious proposal which dramatically changes the U.S. 
Senate and, I believe, what the Founders intended with respect to the 
District of Columbia.
  Then you add to it legislation that has already passed the House and 
is being contemplated being passed here in the Senate that would 
federalize elections in this country, that would codify ballot 
harvesting, and that would ban voter ID, photo ID, which is something 
that, I think, most Americans think is a very wise thing to do when it 
comes to election integrity, to make sure that the people who are 
voting actually are who they say they are. Voter ID is a pretty 
important part of that. It would have the taxpayers finance--publicly 
fund--campaigns in this country. I can't imagine the American 
taxpayers, among all of the other things that they have to finance 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 balanced--three Republican, three Democrat--bipartisan 
committee that has overseen and regulated elections in this country. So 
it would politicize it and give the Democrats an advantage, a partisan 
advantage, on the Federal Election Commission.
  All of those things are in this elections bill, which would 
transform--I mean, I am talking literally transform--the way we do 
elections in this country, which historically and by way of the 
Constitution and the law have been handled and administered at the 
State level. States have been very involved.
  What this would do is consolidate more power in Washington, DC, and 
pull the regulation of elections up to the Federal Government, coupled 
with all of the changes that I just mentioned. There is no way--
absolutely no way--that even if passed they could be done, could be 
implemented, for the upcoming 2022 election, which secretaries of state 
from across the country, including Democratic secretaries of state, 
have indicated.
  So that is another thing that is on the liberal wish list that I 
mentioned: the federalizing of our elections--taking them away from the 
States where, historically, elections have been handled and 
administered--and bringing them here, 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 Democratic Senators and 
House Members--something, again, that would completely change the way 
we fuel our country in ways that would drive up dramatically the costs 
that an average consumer in this country and an average family would 
have to pay for energy. It would be done through mandates, regulations, 
and 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. The Green New Deal is the 
opposite of that. The Green New Deal is a government, Washington, DC, 
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.
  Those are just a handful on the list of what I would call horribles 
for which the left has been advocating for some time in this country. 
All of these things could be accomplished if the Democrats are able to 
follow through with another thing that they said they would never do 
and are now talking about and if they have 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 has ensured through those years that the minority has a 
voice in our policymaking process; that there is an opportunity for 
both sides to collaborate, compromise, and to ensure that there isn't 
majoritarian rule. The Founders

[[Page S2047]]

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.
  It is something that we refused to do--even though the Republicans 
were asked repeatedly during the last 4 years of the Trump Presidency, 
by the President himself, to get rid of the legislative filibuster--
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 policymaking process. It 
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.
  That is something that has been sacred, so sacred, even despite the 
fact that President Trump, on 34 different occasions, asked the 
Republicans--or probably more; I would say ``ask'' would be a gentle 
word--and essentially said that the Republicans in the Senate needed to 
get rid of the legislative filibuster. He either did that by tweet or 
by public statement. It was clearly 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.
  For the past 6 years, we had the majority, and for the past 4 years, 
we 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 believed 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 there is no way. We would never do that. We will never get 
rid of the legislative filibuster. It is too important. We are not 
going to do that. In fact, 33 Democrats signed a letter as recently as 
3 years ago, basically, essentially ratifying their support for the 
legislative filibuster and, as to the suggestion that it could possibly 
be done away with, suggesting that it would be a terrible, wrong thing 
to do for this country--essentially coming out strongly, strongly 
supporting the legislative filibuster. These are 33 Democratic Senators 
here in the U.S. Senate coming out in support of the legislative 
filibuster.
  Now, the shoe is on the other foot. They are in the majority. They 
have been in the majority for about 2 months, and they are already 
talking about it openly, and many have come out and endorsed the idea. 
Frankly, to be honest with you, 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 but to our future. If it were 
not for that, I think it would have been done already. I think the 
Senator from New York, the Democratic leader, 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 would be savaged by his ``woke'' left if 
he wouldn't do it.
  Obviously, the President, President Biden, whom, as I mentioned 
earlier, man people thought would govern as a moderate and a unifier 
and as someone who fiercely defended the legislative filibuster as a 
U.S. Senator and made speeches on this very floor in defending fiercely 
the legislative filibuster, is now also talking about getting rid of it 
in order to implement massive tax hikes, massive spending increases, 
and a massive growth in government--an expansion of government unlike 
anything we have seen in history, including the 1930s, the New Deal. 
This would dwarf that by comparison.

  DC statehood, federalizing our elections, and passing the Green New 
Deal, all of that could be done with 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 already passed or 
are going to pass the House of Representatives and are being considered 
here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, including today when, 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 that it is hard to believe.
  Just as an example of the impact that these tax increases could have, 
look at what the tax cuts that were passed--the reform act that was 
passed in 2017--were doing in terms of the economy and the benefits 
that they were having across all demographic sectors in this country. 
Up until the pandemic, we had the best economy probably in 50 years. We 
had the lowest unemployment rate, for sure. We had the biggest gain in 
income wage levels among particularly minority groups.
  In fact, this is census data from 2019 that shows that the real 
median household income hit its highest level ever for African-
American, Hispanic, and Asian-American workers and retirees. The 2019 
poverty rate was the lowest in more than 50 years for children at 14.4 
percent, the lowest ever for individuals at 10.5 percent, for families 
at 8.5 percent, and for households headed by unmarried women at 22.2 
percent. More impressive is that, even after 10 years of economic 
expansion, the 2019 gains shattered all records as real household 
income leapt by $4,379 in 2019 alone, 13 times the average annual gain 
since data were first collected.
  So the tax policies we had in place were working, and there have been 
record income gains, especially among lower income Americans. The 
poverty rate, as I mentioned, plummeted 11 percent in 2019, the most in 
53 years. Things were moving in the right direction. So the question 
is, If it isn't broke, why fix it? Why would we go and increase taxes 
in a massive way at a time when the economy is growing and expanding 
and creating better paying jobs?
  What I would argue for those in any income group and across any 
ethnic group is that the best solution for improving their standard of 
living and their quality of life is to have a growing, expanding 
economy that is throwing off better paying jobs and higher wages. That 
is what raises the income level. That is what lifts the boat for every 
American, and that is what we ought to be looking for, not how much 
government can we pull back to Washington, DC, and how much government 
can do for you but how we can 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-paying jobs and start 
lifting wages across this country.
  It is about growth in our economy, I would argue. It is about good-
paying jobs. It is about higher wages. That is what our arguments here 
ought to be about. Instead, right now, we are talking about growing 
government and increasing taxes and reversing what, I would argue, is a 
lot of progress that I just mentioned, that being from the 2019 U.S. 
Census Bureau's data.
  Why would we go back on the great progress that has been made? Why 
would we start to contemplate some of these suggestions that I 
mentioned, from the tax hikes, the spending increases, the federalizing 
of our elections, the Green New Deal, and repealing the filibuster 
which, again, would consolidate more control, more power, in the hands 
of a few people here rather than keeping it distributed? It would 
consolidate more and more power in Washington, DC.
  That kind of brings me to the topic for today that 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 to which people said: Now, 
those guys down there, those Democrats, are not that crazy. There are 
some moderate Democrats out there. There are some people who would 
stand up in the way of that and keep something that crazy from 
happening.
  Well, it didn't take very long. It only took a week--just 1 week 
after President Biden established his Commission

[[Page S2048]]

to study Court packing, which is another ostensible Supreme Court 
reform, for the Democratic Members of Congress in both Houses to 
introduce legislation that would actually pack the Court. This is no 
longer a hypothetical. This is colleagues on this side of the aisle and 
the Democrats in the House of Representatives who are openly advocating 
for packing the Supreme Court in the form of legislation and not just 
adding a couple of members but adding enough members to give them a 
majority, to give them a majority on the U.S. 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 the timeframe of, I believe, about 6 months. They couldn't even 
wait for that. They had to introduce a bill that would pack the Court. 
So why did they have to do that? Well, I will tell you.
  The crisis that requires us to immediately add four additional 
Justices to the Supreme Court after 150 years of having the Court at 
its current size is that a duly elected Republican President was able 
to get three Supreme Court nominees approved. Apparently, by confirming 
a duly elected President's Supreme Court nominees, the Republicans 
stole the Court's majority which, I guess, apparently, rightfully, 
belongs to the Democrats, and in doing so, it ``politicized the Supreme 
Court'' and ``threatened the rights of millions of Americans.''
  This legislation, the bill's Senate sponsor says, will ``restore the 
Court's balance and public standing'' and ``begin to repair the damage 
done to our judiciary and democracy.'' That is from the Democrat 
sponsor's 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, there is only one problem, of course, and that is that this 
supposed crisis 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--the real crisis we are facing--is not a crisis of 
confidence in the Court. It is 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 is 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.
  And while some Justices are regarded as more conservative and some as 
more liberal, Americans don't see Justices as partisan in the way that 
we see politicians as partisan, and rightly so.
  I can think of more than one significant case where supposedly 
conservative Justices have sided with the Court's liberals, and there 
are plenty of cases where all of the Supreme Court's Justices have 
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 have had the same number of Supreme Court 
Justices, nine--nine Justices--for more than 150 years. One hundred and 
fifty years, and then Democrats sweep in, announce that the makeup of 
the Supreme Court isn't to their liking, and propose adding four 
Justices, all of them appointed in one fell swoop by a Democratic 
President. And that is 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?
  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.
  Yet Democrats expect us to believe that if it is Democrats who do 
this, if it is 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 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.'''
  That is from the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
  Or, in the words of Justice Breyer, ``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, not politics.'' That is 
from Justice Breyer.
  And Justice Breyer noted: ``Structural alteration motivated by the 
perception of political influence can only feed that latter perception, 
further eroding that trust.''
  As these two reliably liberal Justices make clear, Democrats' Court-
packing plan would do the very thing Democrats claim to oppose, and 
that is 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 and 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. Twenty 
Justices? Thirty 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 is 
built, would be destroyed. The consequences of politicizing and 
trivializing 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 has 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.
  It is deeply, deeply disappointing that Democrat 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 for them to stand up to the 
unhinged and far-left fringes of their party, and it is 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.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S2049]]

  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Border Security

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to talk about 
what is 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 has reached a catastrophic phase, 
and it is not getting any better.
  Let me reemphasize that 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 at the highest level we have 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 emails, the 
administration is recruiting NASA employees to sit with children at 
border facilities. Really? That is 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 are 
surely taking advantage of it.
  This can't continue. I have written to the Biden administration. I 
have visited the border in person. I have seen overwhelmed facilities. 
I have heard the calls of the 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 2 years of the Trump administration, I 
held hearings on immigration topics of bipartisan interest to all 
committee members, including Democratic committee members. Those 
hearings included oversight of family reunification efforts and the 
Trump administration's decision to end DACA programs.
  In that very same way, I am hopeful that Chairman Durbin will be 
willing to hold hearings on matters of great importance to me and 
committee members on both sides of the aisle. I am 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, and 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 is what is so sad about 
the situation. It is not making anyone's life any better. In fact, it 
is putting lives at risk, American lives and immigrant lives. Yet the 
administration refuses to solve the problem.
  Earlier this month, I requested that the Department of Homeland 
Security, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, after briefing my investigative staff, that they brief the 
full Judiciary Committee, Republicans and Democrats, on a member level. 
Members need to fully understand the national security problems at the 
border with respect to terrorists, narcoterrorists, human smugglers, 
and every one of their criminal counterparts. We must also be fully 
read in to the methods and means that they use to plan and accomplish 
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 has a 
crisis on its hands. It is time to stop the denial and act now to solve 
this border crisis


                          Information Sharing

  Mr. President, on another issue, I would like to address my fellow 
Senators. 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 are the 
biggest loser when it comes to our intellectual property-related crime 
and activity.
  Unfortunately, the problem 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 sites 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 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 is 
harder for Customs and Border Protection and its private sector 
partners to detect and disrupt counterfeiting networks. If they could 
work together and the law allowed it, it would be a lot easier to 
tackle the problems.
  To give credit where it is due, Customs and Border Protection has 
recognized this problem and is taking steps to rectify it through the 
21st Century Customs Framework--for short, 21CCF--to improve data-
sharing capabilities in real time. However, without statutory authority 
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 toward 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 am 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.

[[Page S2050]]

  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Infrastructure

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in a State as big as Texas--as the 
Presiding Officer knows, having lived in and around Houston for a 
number of years in his previous life--we rely on a strong network of 
roads and bridges to travel safely and efficiently.
  We have I-35, which spans the entire length of Texas, from north to 
south, and from Laredo all way to Dallas-Fort Worth. Much of that 
stretch, it seems like and feels like, is constantly under some 
construction.
  There are bridges that are part of people's daily commutes, like RM 
2900 in Kingsland. After this bridge was destroyed by floodwaters a few 
years back, it didn't just create inconvenience in the community but 
also risks. It could take a firefighter an hour to get around the 
water.
  Fortunately, the Texas Department of Transportation and construction 
crews didn't waste any time, and I was able to join the dedication less 
than a year later. You heard that right. The bridge was destroyed, and 
less than a year later we dedicated the opening of that bridge.
  Then we have critical projects in the works, like the ``forts to 
ports'' corridor of I-14, which stretches from Fort Hood all the way to 
the Gulf of Mexico. This will connect our critical military 
installations to our seaports and provide a serious boost to our 
military readiness.
  These are much more than just roads and bridges. They are vital parts 
of our daily lives, trade, emergency response, and, of course, national 
security.
  And as we welcome more new Texans every day, things are nearing a 
breaking point. We can't punch above our weight much longer when it 
come to our transportation infrastructure. It is time--and I believe it 
is a bipartisan belief that this is the time--to invest in our Nation's 
infrastructure, and we know, historically, that this has not been a 
partisan issue.
  I am pro-infrastructure, and I imagine every person in this Chamber 
would tell you the same thing, regardless of whether they are from a 
red State or blue State. We have a strong history of working together 
to fund the networks of roads, bridges, airports, railroads, tunnels, 
and the ports that the American people rely on. For example, in 2015, 
we passed a 5-year highway and transit funding bill called the FAST 
Act, with overwhelming bipartisan support. It received 83 votes here in 
the Senate and 359 votes in the House, as well as the signature of 
President Obama. This legislation provided the certainty and stability 
our States need to make long-term investments in critical projects, and 
it was the first of its kind in more than a decade.
  Last Congress, we were poised to pass a similar bill. The Environment 
and Public Works Committee developed a truly bipartisan example of an 
infrastructure bill that built on the success of the FAST Act. That was 
led by Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, at the time, but it 
was unanimous. This legislation included provisions to rebuild our 
crumbling roads and bridges and improve road safety, protect the 
environment, and grow the economy. Once again, it received broad 
bipartisan support and passed the committee with unanimous support.
  As we know, the last year has brought us untold changes and, 
unfortunately, put this and other legislative goals on pause while we 
battled COVID-19. But now is the time to pick up where we left off and 
get a strong infrastructure bill signed into law.
  Unfortunately, the proposal by the administration is a far cry from 
what the country actually needs. For starters, the cost of the plan is 
beyond comprehension. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible 
Federal Budget estimates said it will cost $2.65 trillion, nearly nine 
times the size of the last highway bill--nine times.
  When talking about this proposal, one House Democrat said: ``It's 
gonna to be a kitchen sink.''
  The founding director of the Cornell Program in Infrastructure Policy 
said: Well, the administration certainly has a ``giant definition'' for 
what constitutes ``infrastructure.''
  But even journalists are making fun of the scope of this plan, with 
one writing: ``Maybe the real meaning of infrastructure is what's in 
our hearts.''
  Well, these aren't just jokes. Only about 5 percent of this proposal 
is directed at roads and bridges, what some have called core 
infrastructure. In fact, it puts more money toward electric vehicle 
chargers than pavement that we drive on every day.
  The proposal funds a long list of programs that are a far cry from 
what most people consider to be infrastructure: caregiving for the 
elderly and disabled, community colleges, programs to improve diversity 
in STEM careers. All of these are significant and important issues, but 
they don't belong in an infrastructure bill--certainly not one that 
proposes to raise taxes on the American people or to create more debt.
  Then there are the most absurd policies that really resemble the 
Green New Deal, which I note was just reoffered by Senator Markey and 
Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez: more than $200 billion to build or 
retrofit more than 2 million ``affordable and sustainable'' places to 
live, a ``Civilian Climate Corp,'' and an unrealistic goal of 100 
percent renewable-generated electricity by 2035.
  My State is an all-of-the-above State when it comes to energy, but I 
can tell you that if all you are depending on is renewable energy, 
without appropriate attention to the baseload you need, you are going 
to end up like we did, unfortunately, just a couple of months ago, with 
electricity going down due to extreme weather.
  I support efforts to rebuild our infrastructure, but this is not an 
infrastructure proposal. This is, really, much closer to the Green New 
Deal 2.0. It is an encore to the nearly $2 trillion wish list that our 
Democratic colleagues rammed through on a partisan basis earlier this 
year.
  Any attempt to claim that Republican won't work with Democrats on an 
infrastructure bill is completely disingenuous because this is not a 
good-faith attempt at bipartisanship.

  I would be happy to work with our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle to craft an infrastructure bill that addresses our legitimate 
infrastructure problems, and I think every person on this side would 
agree with that. That would include traditional transportation, such as 
roads and bridges, as well as certain forms of nontraditional 
infrastructure, for example, broadband.
  The pandemic has really highlighted the digital divide that exists 
across our country, and as Americans relied on the internet to work, to 
attend school, for telehealth, and a long list of other activities, it 
has become increasingly apparent that we are far from where we should 
be when it comes to broadband access in this country.
  There is bipartisan support for a bill that addresses our most urgent 
infrastructure needs without tacking on unrelated partisan priorities. 
As far as the price tag of the bill, I am not married to a particular 
number. The last highway bill that became law was roughly $300 billion, 
and I think we all agree there is a need to pursue something bigger and 
bolder. But that needs to be limited to infrastructure.
  The final pricetag of that bill should be the result of bipartisan 
negotiations between Democrats and Republicans, not in numbers handed 
down from the administration, unilaterally.
  There is one point I want to make abundantly clear: A bipartisan 
infrastructure bill must exist instead of, not in addition to, our 
Democrat colleagues' unrelated priorities. We can't work in a 
bipartisan way to pass one bill only to have our Democratic colleagues 
then attempt to jam through on a partisan basis on reconciliation 
another long list of their priorities. In other words, we have to 
choose, and what I suggest we choose is bipartisan infrastructure 
legislation.
  The choice before our Democratic colleagues is whether to work 
together or attempt to go it alone. You really can't have both.
  We also need to be serious about paying for our infrastructure in a 
sustainable way. We have just spent trillions of dollars on 
coronavirus, not to mention the long list of priorities included in the 
most recent partisan bill.
  This is not a time to continue the spending spree. Investments in our

[[Page S2051]]

roads and bridges are needed, but we need to figure out how they will 
be paid for. The massive tax hikes that the President has proposed are 
not a viable option. The burden will be borne by both American 
employers and workers.
  In previous years, the vast majority of infrastructure funding came 
from the highway trust fund. Every State sends dollars to this fund, 
which finances infrastructure across the country. But the formula to 
distribute the funding is out of date and is facing serious deficits.
  Making matters worse, Texans are getting short-changed and carrying 
the weight of these shortfalls, as a so-called donor State. We get 92 
cents back on every dollar we send to Washington, DC.
  That is not the same treatment for every State. In fact, we receive a 
lower rate of return than every other State. If we want to have any 
long-term success in maintaining our roads and bridges, we need to 
bring this funding formula up to speed as well.
  Unfortunately, the administration's proposal fails to do that, and 
instead of making any repairs to the highway trust fund, it leans on 
damaging tax hikes to pay for this broad range of unrelated policies.
  The President has, indeed, proposed the largest set of tax hikes in 
more than a half a century. Economics 101 would teach you that tax 
increases aren't a clear and easy way to boost revenue, especially when 
your economy is already on fragile footing.
  I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will be willing to 
work with us to pass a true infrastructure bill, one that will, first 
and foremost, improve roads, bridges, airports, and other critical 
projects all across the country.
  Notably, we must find a responsible way to pay for this, but tax 
hikes are not the answer. We have always had this idea in the highway 
trust fund that user fees--the people that buy gasoline and use the 
roadways--were the ones to pay for them, not pay for them out of 
general revenue. And I think we need to continue down this user-fee 
model, as opposed to deficit spending and adding to our debt.
  Again, in closing, let me just say, if our Democratic friends want to 
act in a bipartisan way, there are people on this side of the aisle, 
including me, that would be happy to sit down and start talking. But, 
first of all, our Democratic colleagues must agree to abandon their 
long wish list of unrelated partisan provisions. They can't work with 
us on an infrastructure bill and then follow it with a reconciliation 
bill that includes the kitchen sink.
  A bipartisan bill to rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges is 
possible. We have done it before, and we can do it again.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________