[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 70 (Thursday, April 22, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2170-S2175]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Marshall, and Mrs.
Shaheen):
S. 1309. A bill to provide payments for home health services
furnished via visual or audio telecommunications systems during an
emergency period; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues
Senator Cardin, Senator Marshall, and Senator Shaheen, to introduce the
Home Health Emergency Access to Telehealth (HEAT) Act. This bipartisan
bill would help ensure that seniors who rely on home health care have
the choice to receive these critical services through telehealth during
the COVID-19 pandemic and future public health emergencies.
COVID-19 is the greatest public health challenge since the flu
pandemic of 1918 and has claimed the lives of more than 565,000
Americans. This public health emergency has underscored the need for
older adults and other at-risk populations to have access to health
care in the home setting. Home-based care is crucial to ensuring that
this pandemic does not create devastating long-term health consequences
due to delayed care. The highly skilled and compassionate care that
home health agencies provide is an important component of this in-home
care.
I have been a strong supporter of home care since my very first home
visit, which took place in my hometown in Aroostook County early in my
Senate service. This experience gave me the opportunity to meet and
visit with home health patients, where I saw first-hand what a
difference highly skilled and caring visiting nurses and other health
care professionals make to the lives of patients and their families. I
have been a passionate advocate for home care ever since.
Last year, my bipartisan home health legislation, the Home Health
Care Planning Improvement Act, became law as part of the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. This law, which I
championed for 13 years, will improve the access Medicare beneficiaries
have to home health care by allowing physician assistants, nurse
practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and certified nurse midwives
to order home health services. Far too often seniors experience
unnecessary delays in accessing home health care. To avoid these
needless delays, it is common sense that other medical professionals
who are familiar with a patient's case should be able to order these
services.
Home health professionals have continued to provide face-to-face
services during the COVID-19 public health emergency, but this crisis
has created additional challenges, including the need to maintain an
adequate supply of personal protective equipment to protect themselves,
their patients, and their patients' families. The use of telehealth and
virtual visits can help address these challenges. Unlike other Medicare
providers, however, home health agencies are not eligible to receive
Medicare reimbursement for telehealth services during the COVID-19
emergency.
Last May, I chaired Congress' first hearing examining COVID-19's
devastating impact on seniors. During the hearing, Dr. Steven Landers,
President and CEO of the Visiting Nurse Association Health Group,
testified that, despite this lack of Medicare reimbursement, his
organization has found telehealth to be an essential part of providing
high quality home health care during the COVID-19 public health
emergency. He urged action to ensure that home health providers can
continue offering these critical services remotely.
Maine home health care providers have also shared their stories about
how telehealth is helping them to continue caring for their patients
during COVID-19. Through a combination of video visits and care calls,
one provider has been able to care for a woman with severe heart and
lung disease and keep this patient out of the hospital. The nurse would
speak with the woman by phone a couple of times per week to assess any
symptoms that needed follow up. If the nurse identified an issue during
the call, she would schedule a video visit and also work with the
patient's physician to modify medications as needed.
The bill we are introducing today would authorize Medicare
reimbursement for home health services provided through telehealth
during an emergency period. The services would not be reimbursed unless
the beneficiary consents to receiving the services via telehealth. To
ensure that the Medicare home health benefit does not become a
telehealth-only benefit, Medicare reimbursement would only be provided
if the telehealth services constitute no more than half of the billable
visits made during the 30-day payment period. The Secretary of Health
and Human Services would be required to issue guidance on the
authorization of and payment for home health services provided via
telehealth.
Home health serves a vital role in helping our Nation's seniors avoid
more costly hospital visits and nursing home stays. The COVID-19
emergencyhas further underscored the critical importance of home health
services and highlighted how these agencies are able to use telehealth
to provide skilled care to their patients. The Home Health Emergency
Access to Telehealth (HEAT) Act would ensure that seniors in Maine and
across the country retain access to remote home health services during
the COVID-19 emergency and future public health emergencies.
Thank you, Mr. President.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Brown,
Mr. Reed, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Markey, and Ms.
Hirono):
S. 1314. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
tax rate parity among all tobacco products, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1314
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Tobacco Tax Equity Act of
2021''.
SEC. 2. INCREASING EXCISE TAXES ON CIGARETTES AND
ESTABLISHING EXCISE TAX EQUITY AMONG ALL
TOBACCO PRODUCT TAX RATES.
(a) Tax Parity for Roll-Your-Own Tobacco.--Section 5701(g)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
``$24.78'' and inserting ``$49.56''.
(b) Tax Parity for Pipe Tobacco.--Section 5701(f) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
``$2.8311 cents'' and inserting ``$49.56''.
(c) Tax Parity for Smokeless Tobacco.--
(1) Section 5701(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$1.51'' and inserting
``$26.84'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``50.33 cents'' and
inserting ``$10.74''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Smokeless tobacco sold in discrete single-use
units.--On discrete single-use units, $100.66 per
thousand.''.
(2) Section 5702(m) of such Code is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or chewing tobacco''
and inserting ``, chewing tobacco, or discrete single-use
unit'';
(B) in paragraphs (2) and (3), by inserting ``that is not a
discrete single-use unit'' before the period in each such
paragraph; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Discrete single-use unit.--The term `discrete single-
use unit' means any product containing, made from, or derived
from tobacco or nicotine that--
``(A) is not intended to be smoked; and
``(B) is in the form of a lozenge, tablet, pill, pouch,
dissolvable strip, or other discrete single-use or single-
dose unit.''.
[[Page S2171]]
(d) Tax Parity for Small Cigars.--Paragraph (1) of section
5701(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
striking ``$50.33'' and inserting ``$100.66''.
(e) Tax Parity for Large Cigars.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 5701(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``52.75
percent'' and all that follows through the period and
inserting the following: ``$49.56 per pound and a
proportionate tax at the like rate on all fractional parts of
a pound but not less than 10.066 cents per cigar.''.
(2) Guidance.--The Secretary of the Treasury, or the
Secretary's delegate, may issue guidance regarding the
appropriate method for determining the weight of large cigars
for purposes of calculating the applicable tax under section
5701(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(f) Tax Parity for Roll-Your-Own Tobacco and Certain
Processed Tobacco.--Subsection (o) of section 5702 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``, and
includes processed tobacco that is removed for delivery or
delivered to a person other than a person with a permit
provided under section 5713, but does not include removals of
processed tobacco for exportation'' after ``wrappers
thereof''.
(g) Clarifying Tax Rate for Other Tobacco Products.--
(1) In general.--Section 5701 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(i) Other Tobacco Products.--Any product not otherwise
described under this section that has been determined to be a
tobacco product by the Food and Drug Administration through
its authorities under the Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act shall be taxed at a level of tax
equivalent to the tax rate for cigarettes on an estimated per
use basis as determined by the Secretary.''.
(2) Establishing per use basis.--For purposes of section
5701(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, not later than
12 months after the later of the date of the enactment of
this Act or the date that a product has been determined to be
a tobacco product by the Food and Drug Administration, the
Secretary of the Treasury (or the Secretary of the Treasury's
delegate) shall issue final regulations establishing the
level of tax for such product that is equivalent to the tax
rate for cigarettes on an estimated per use basis.
(h) Clarifying Definition of Tobacco Products.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 5702 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Tobacco Products.--The term `tobacco products'
means--
``(1) cigars, cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, pipe tobacco,
and roll-your-own tobacco, and
``(2) any other product subject to tax pursuant to section
5701(i).''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Subsection (d) of section 5702
of such Code is amended by striking ``cigars, cigarettes,
smokeless tobacco, pipe tobacco, or roll-your-own tobacco''
each place it appears and inserting ``tobacco products''.
(i) Increasing Tax on Cigarettes.--
(1) Small cigarettes.--Section 5701(b)(1) of such Code is
amended by striking ``$50.33'' and inserting ``$100.66''.
(2) Large cigarettes.--Section 5701(b)(2) of such Code is
amended by striking ``$105.69'' and inserting ``$211.38''.
(j) Tax Rates Adjusted for Inflation.--Section 5701 of such
Code, as amended by subsection (g), is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(j) Inflation Adjustment.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of any calendar year
beginning after 2021, the dollar amounts provided under this
chapter shall each be increased by an amount equal to--
``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by
substituting `calendar year 2020' for `calendar year 2016' in
subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof.
``(2) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under paragraph
(1) is not a multiple of $0.01, such amount shall be rounded
to the next highest multiple of $0.01.''.
(k) Floor Stocks Taxes.--
(1) Imposition of tax.--On tobacco products manufactured in
or imported into the United States which are removed before
any tax increase date and held on such date for sale by any
person, there is hereby imposed a tax in an amount equal to
the excess of--
(A) the tax which would be imposed under section 5701 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 on the article if the
article had been removed on such date, over
(B) the prior tax (if any) imposed under section 5701 of
such Code on such article.
(2) Credit against tax.--Each person shall be allowed as a
credit against the taxes imposed by paragraph (1) an amount
equal to $500. Such credit shall not exceed the amount of
taxes imposed by paragraph (1) on such date for which such
person is liable.
(3) Liability for tax and method of payment.--
(A) Liability for tax.--A person holding tobacco products
on any tax increase date to which any tax imposed by
paragraph (1) applies shall be liable for such tax.
(B) Method of payment.--The tax imposed by paragraph (1)
shall be paid in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe
by regulations.
(C) Time for payment.--The tax imposed by paragraph (1)
shall be paid on or before the date that is 120 days after
the effective date of the tax rate increase.
(4) Articles in foreign trade zones.--Notwithstanding the
Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known as the Foreign Trade
Zone Act, 48 Stat. 998, 19 U.S.C. 81a et seq.), or any other
provision of law, any article which is located in a foreign
trade zone on any tax increase date shall be subject to the
tax imposed by paragraph (1) if--
(A) internal revenue taxes have been determined, or customs
duties liquidated, with respect to such article before such
date pursuant to a request made under the first proviso of
section 3(a) of such Act, or
(B) such article is held on such date under the supervision
of an officer of the United States Customs and Border
Protection of the Department of Homeland Security pursuant to
the second proviso of such section 3(a).
(5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
(A) In general.--Any term used in this subsection which is
also used in section 5702 of such Code shall have the same
meaning as such term has in such section.
(B) Tax increase date.--The term ``tax increase date''
means the effective date of any increase in any tobacco
product excise tax rate pursuant to the amendments made by
this section (other than subsection (j) thereof).
(C) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate.
(6) Controlled groups.--Rules similar to the rules of
section 5061(e)(3) of such Code shall apply for purposes of
this subsection.
(7) Other laws applicable.--All provisions of law,
including penalties, applicable with respect to the taxes
imposed by section 5701 of such Code shall, insofar as
applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this
subsection, apply to the floor stocks taxes imposed by
paragraph (1), to the same extent as if such taxes were
imposed by such section 5701. The Secretary may treat any
person who bore the ultimate burden of the tax imposed by
paragraph (1) as the person to whom a credit or refund under
such provisions may be allowed or made.
(l) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2)
through (4), the amendments made by this section shall apply
to articles removed (as defined in section 5702(j) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986) after the last day of the
month which includes the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Discrete single-use units and processed tobacco.--The
amendments made by subsections (c)(1)(C), (c)(2), and (f)
shall apply to articles removed (as defined in section
5702(j) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) after the date
that is 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) Large cigars.--The amendments made by subsection (e)
shall apply to articles removed after December 31, 2021.
(4) Other tobacco products.--The amendments made by
subsection (g)(1) shall apply to products removed after the
last day of the month which includes the date that the
Secretary of the Treasury (or the Secretary of the Treasury's
delegate) issues final regulations establishing the level of
tax for such product.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Van Hollen):
S. 1343. A bill to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require
that a consumer authorize the release of certain information; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. REED. I am joined by Senator Van Hollen in reintroducing the
Consumer Credit Control Act, which gives consumers greater control over
when and how their consumer reports are shared by consumer reporting
agencies.
Our current consumer reporting system is backwards. Consumer
reporting agencies collect massive amounts of personal information on
consumers, often without their knowledge, in order to compile consumer
reports. These reports are then shared with financial institutions and
others, often without consent.
Following Equifax's failure in 2017 to secure troves of valuable
personally identifiable information it collected on approximately 147
million Americans, it remains clear that this system needs to change.
Indeed, the National Consumer Law Center's Chi Chi Wu stated in her
October 2017 testimony before the House Financial Services Committee
that the Equifax breach ``means half of the US population and nearly
three-quarters of the consumers with active credit reports are now at
risk of identity theft due to one of the worst--if not the worst--
breaches of consumer data in American history. These Americans are at
risk of having false new credit accounts, phony tax returns, and even
spurious medical bills incurred in their good names.'' To make matters
worse, the risks of identity fraud may only increase with time. As Ed
Mierzwinski, U.S. PIRG's federal Consumer Program Director, explains
``unlike credit card numbers, your Social Security Number and Date of
Birth don't change and may even grow more
[[Page S2172]]
valuable over time, like gold in a bank vault. Much worse, they are the
keys to `new account identity theft.' ''
The Consumer Credit Control Act aims to address these concerns and
fix the current upside down system. Our legislation, at no cost to the
consumer, seeks to give Americans greater control over when and how
their consumer reports are released when applying for new credit, a
loan, or insurance. It also requires consumer reporting agencies to
verify a consumer's identity and secure the consumer's permission
before releasing consumer reports in instances that are particularly
susceptible to identity theft and fraud. Additionally, our legislation
requires every consumer reporting agency to take appropriate steps to
prevent unauthorized access to the consumer reports and personal
information they maintain. These changes are intended to make it
tougher for criminals to open new fraudulent credit or insurance
accounts in other people's names.
I urge our colleagues to cosponsor the Consumer Credit Control Act,
and I thank Senator Van Hollen, the National Consumer Law Center (on
behalf of its low-income clients), U.S. PIRG, Americans for Financial
Reform, the Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Action, the Consumer
Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Demos, the NAACP, the National
Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Fair Housing Alliance,
Public Citizen, Tennessee Citizen Action, and the Woodstock Institute
for their support.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Ms. Duckworth):
S. 1344. A bill to redesignate the Pullman National Monument in the
State of Illinois as the Pullman National Historical Park, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1344
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Pullman National Historical
Park Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Historical park.--The term ``historical park'' means
the Pullman National Historical Park.
(2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Pullman
National Historical Park, Chicago, Illinois, Boundary'',
numbered ____, and dated _____.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 3. REDESIGNATION OF PULLMAN NATIONAL MONUMENT.
(a) In General.--The Pullman National Monument, established
by Proclamation Number 9233, dated February 19, 2015, is
redesignated as the ``Pullman National Historical Park.''.
(b) Availability of Funds.--Any funds available for
purposes of the Pullman National Monument shall be available
for purposes of the historical park.
(c) References.--Any references in a law, regulation,
document, record, map, or other paper of the United States to
the Pullman National Monument shall be considered to be a
reference to the historical park.
(d) Proclamation.--Proclamation Number 9233, dated February
19, 2015, shall have no force or effect.
SEC. 4. PURPOSES.
The purposes of the historical park are to preserve,
protect, and interpret Pullman's nationally significant
cultural and historical resources associated with--
(1) the Nation's labor history and creation of a national
Labor Day holiday;
(2) the first planned industrial community in the United
States;
(3) the architecture and landscape design of the planned
community;
(4) the pivotal role of the Pullman porter in the rise of
the African-American middle class; and
(5) the entirety of history, culture, and historic figures
embodied in Presidential Proclamation Number 9233.
SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.
The Secretary shall administer the land within the boundary
of the historical park in accordance with--
(1) this Act; and
(2) the laws generally applicable to units of the National
Park System, including--
(A) section 100101(a), chapter 1003, and sections
100751(a), 100752, 100753 and 102101 of title 54, United
States Code; and
(B) chapter 3201 of title 54, United States Code.
SEC. 6. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.
To further the purposes of this subsection and
notwithstanding chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code,
the Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with the
State, other public and non-profit entities, and other
interested parties--
(1) to support collaborative interpretive and educational
programs at non-Federal historic properties within the
boundaries of the historical park; and
(2) to identify, interpret, and provide assistance for the
preservation of non-Federal land within the boundaries of the
historical park and at sites in close proximity to the
historical park, but located outside the boundaries of the
historical park, including providing for placement of
directional and interpretive signage, exhibits, and
technology-based interpretive devices; and
SEC. 7. USE OF FUNDS.
The Secretary may use appropriated funds to mark,
interpret, improve, restore, and provide technical assistance
with respect to the preservation and interpretation of the
properties. Any payment made by the Secretary under this
clause shall be subject to an agreement that the conversion,
use, or disposal of the project for purposes that are
inconsistent with the purposes of this subsection, as
determined by the Secretary, shall result in a right of the
United States to reimbursement of the greater of--
(1) the amount provided by the Secretary to the project; or
(2) an amount equal to the increase in the value of the
project that is attributable to the funds, as determined by
the Secretary at the time of the conversion, use, or
disposal. Any cooperative agreement entered into under this
subparagraph shall provide for reasonable public access to
the resources covered by the cooperative agreement.
SEC. 8. ACQUISITION OF LAND.
The Secretary may acquire for inclusion in the historical
park any land (including interests in land), buildings, or
structures owned by the State, or any other political,
private, or nonprofit entity by donation, transfer, exchange,
or purchase from a willing seller.
SEC. 9. MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Not later than 3 fiscal years after the date on which funds
are first made available to carry out this Act, the Secretary
shall complete a general management plan for the historical
park.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Carper):
S. 1345. A bill to establish a national mercury monitoring program,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today is Earth Day, and there are many
issues, environmental challenges, that each of us could be discussing
here on the Senate floor.
I have chosen to speak on a bill that I am introducing today that is
called the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act. I am pleased
to be partnering, once again, with my colleague from Delaware, Senator
Carper, who serves as the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee. Our bipartisan bill would help ensure that we have
accurate information about the extent of mercury pollution in our
country.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. It poses significant ecological and
public health concerns, especially for children and pregnant women.
Mercury exposure has gone down as U.S. mercury emissions have declined.
However, the levels remain unacceptably high.
It is estimated that nearly 200,000 children born in the United
States have been exposed to levels of mercury in the womb that are high
enough to impair their neurological development. This exposure can
impose a lifelong disability.
In addition, the societal costs of neurocognitive deficits associated
with mercury exposure are estimated to be approximately $4.8 billion
per year.
In Maine, some of our lands and bodies of water face higher mercury
pollution compared to the national average. Maine has been called the
tailpipe of the Nation, as the winds carrying pollution, including
mercury, from the West drift into the State of Maine
A system for collecting information, such as we have for acid rain
and other forms of pollution, does not currently exist for mercury,
which, ironically, is a more toxic pollutant. A comprehensive mercury
monitoring network is needed to protect human health, safeguard our
fisheries, and track the effect of emission reductions. This monitoring
network would also help policymakers, scientists, and the public better
understand the sources, consequences, and trends of mercury pollution
in our country.
Specifically, our legislation would do the following:
First, it would direct the EPA, in conjunction with the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Park
Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other
Federal Agencies, to
[[Page S2173]]
establish a national mercury monitoring program to measure and monitor
mercury levels in the air and watersheds, water and soil chemistry, and
in marine, freshwater, and terrestrial organisms at multiple sites
across the Nation.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S2172, April 22, 2021, bottom of the third column, the
following appears: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Association
The online Record has been corrected to read: the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
========================= END NOTE =========================
Second, it would establish a scientific advisory committee to advise
on the establishment, site selection, measurement, recording protocols,
and operations of this monitoring program.
Third, our bill would establish a centralized database for existing
and newly collected environmental mercury data that can be freely
accessed on the internet and that is compatible with similar
international efforts.
Fourth, our bill would require a report to Congress every 2 years on
the program, including trend data, and an assessment every 4 years of
the reduction in mercury deposition rates that needs to be achieved in
order to prevent adverse human and ecological effects on our
environment.
Fifth, our bill would authorize $95 million over 3 years for these
purposes.
We must establish a comprehensive, robust national mercury monitoring
network. Otherwise, we will lack the data we need to help make informed
decisions that can help protect the people of Maine and the Nation,
particularly our children and pregnant women.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan bill,
the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act.
Thank you
______
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Ms. Sinema):
S. 1358. A bill to establish regional processing centers, to improve
the asylum and credible fear processes to promote fairness and
efficiency, to require immigration court docketing priorities during
irregular migration influx events, and to improve the capability of the
Department of Homeland Security to manage migration flows, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last few months, we have been
spending a lot of time talking about the surge of migrants at our
southern border and, as the Presiding Officer knows, we are having
bipartisan meetings here to try to figure out how to address that and
other challenges of our broken immigration system.
We know the spike in migration is not a new phenomenon, and sadly,
neither is the increase in the number of unaccompanied children. But
the current surge is unlike anything we have experienced in the past.
We are breaking all the wrong kinds of records, including the numbers
of unaccompanied children, total monthly border crossings, and capacity
levels at care facilities. And, of course, all of this is happening
during a pandemic which creates serious risks for our law enforcement
and for those caring for these migrants and for the migrants
themselves.
Unfortunately, the administration has not yet figured out how to stop
this flow of illegal immigration. The President and his team are
telling migrants: Don't come. But when it comes to his policies, all of
his policies say: Come while you can.
They haven't figured out how to replace Trump-era policies, and so
what they have done is left a void that is being exploited by everybody
from the coyotes, the human smugglers, the people who smuggle in drugs
into the United States, as well as the people who understandably want a
better life. Maybe they are fleeing poverty or violence. We all
understand why people want to come to the United States, but we also
believe the safest and fairest sort of immigration policy is legal
immigration into our country.
We are the most generous country in the world. We have naturalized
about a million people a year. It is one of our comparative advantages
compared to the rest of the world that restricts migration. Over the
last few months, like many of us, I have spent a lot of time listening
and learning from the folks on the ground in Texas who know the ins and
outs of this topic better than anybody else.
I have visited border communities and heard from Border Patrol
officers, mayors, county judges, and nongovernmental organizations that
try to help these migrants once they make their way to the United
States, and whose experience precedes this current surge.
I visited five of the facilities in Texas that are helping take care
of the record number of migrant children in Carrizo Springs, Donna,
Houston, Midland, and Dallas. I have heard about the heartbreaking
circumstances under which many of these children have arrived on our
doorsteps. I have seen the incredible ways that our nongovernmental
organizations, like Catholic Charities, are trying to ease the burden
of this crisis, even after a year of supporting their communities
through a global pandemic.
The reality of this situation is that we are quickly nearing a
breaking point. We lack the facilities, the personnel, the resources,
and the policies needed to manage this crisis. Law enforcement in
border communities are being overwhelmed by the sharp increase in
migration, and unless something changes, the entire system could
collapse.
The light is flashing red, and the time for action is now. That is
why today I am proud to introduce the bipartisan Border Solutions Act,
along with Senator Sinema, to address this crisis.
It is no accident that both of us represent border States and that
both of us have heard from our communities and stakeholders on the
ground about how important it is for Congress to step up and provide
some way to mitigate the current crisis.
On the House side, we have two of my friends in the Texas
delegation--Congressmen Henry Cuellar, from Laredo, and Tony Gonzales,
who represents one of the largest border districts in the country. So
we truly have a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation.
Our knowledge of this crisis doesn't just come from the news or
political talking points but, as I suggested, from real conversations
with the real people who are dealing with this and have dealt with
previous surges. We have heard from State and local leaders, law
enforcement, NGOs, as I said, and a range of property owners whose
property is being overrun by the coyotes and those who are involved in
this illegal immigration process. So their input has been the driving
force behind the bill, which includes, I believe, commonsense measures
to address this crisis.
It is not, admittedly, a comprehensive immigration bill, but we need
to put the fire out first and then build on our success, once we have
passed that legislation, to do the other things that I think we can
probably agree on, on a consensus basis, such as we discussed with the
majority leader and others last evening
The Bipartisan Border Solutions Act is not about scoring political
points. It is about solving a problem, and that problem is getting
bigger every day. The most immediate problem is our inability to
properly process the sheer number of people crossing our border.
Our Border Patrol and Health and Human Services, and the Office of
Refugee Resettlement are simply overwhelmed. In March, we saw the
highest number of border crossings on record: 172,000 individuals. That
was a dramatic increase from the eye-popping numbers in February, which
totaled 100,000.
As I said, we have seen these surges before but never a surge like
this magnitude. Now, the busiest months for people to cross the border
typically are April, May, and June but not February and not March. So
we know that this is only going to get worse based on our historical
experience.
If our facilities and people are already overwhelmed, imagine how the
strain will intensify if we do nothing. We already know that, in
processing these migrants, important steps are being skipped in an
effort to expedite the process.
Normally, if someone comes across the border seeking asylum, for
example, they will be processed and released with a notice to appear
for a future court hearing. That document includes important
information like when and where their first court date is set. In many
cases, right now, it just isn't happening.
Many migrants are being released in the interior of the United States
with incomplete paperwork, and they are not given any notice to appear
for a future immigration court date. And, you know, if they don't show
up in court, a
[[Page S2174]]
default order of deportation will be entered even if they have a
meritorious claim for asylum. So it has real consequences.
But what else can our government officials and our local communities
do? Unfortunately, they do not want us to continue releasing people to
the interior without a court date or information on what is needed in
order to assert your claim. And as I said, without appearing in court,
a migrant with a valid asylum claim won't be able to receive the relief
that U.S. law provides for them.
At one point, the situation was so bad, the Biden administration
considered flying migrants to less busy locations on the northern
border to be processed. So there is really no question we need to
improve our capacity and our process to handle these migrants more
thoroughly and efficiently.
Our bipartisan bill here in the Senate and in the House will
establish four regional processing centers in high-traffic areas along
the border to streamline the intake of migrants. One reason that is so
important, just beyond capacity issues, is that the smugglers who
smuggle people into the United States for a price--part of
transnational criminal organizations--they make a lot of money doing
this, and they are smart. They know if they flood the zone with
unaccompanied children, that the Border Patrol will go offline in order
to take care of those children, which we want those children taken care
of. But what the smugglers know and what the transnational criminal
organizations know is once those Border Patrol come off the frontline,
they are going to exploit that loophole by running drugs into the
United States or more migrants.
Last year alone--or the last 12 months alone, 88,000 Americans have
died from drug overdoses. And 92 percent of the heroin that comes into
the United States comes from Mexico, together with a lot of
methamphetamine, fentanyl, cocaine, and you name it. So we are dealing
with incredibly shrewd and crafty people who understand the border
perhaps better than most of us do.
One of the worst parts of the current crisis is the tens of thousands
of unaccompanied children who are making the dangerous trip from
Central America or Mexico without their parents. Many of us have seen
the heartbreaking video of a young boy, abandoned by smugglers in the
Rio Grande Valley, and he was asking for directions because he was
lost. Smugglers left him behind. I don't know why. Maybe he was injured
or ill or slowing them down, but these smugglers don't care about this
young boy or any other human being. All they care about is the money.
And we have also read the story about a young girl who drowned trying
to cross the river. And who can forget the young girls, ages 3 and 5,
who literally were dropped over the border wall by human smugglers?
The truth is, migrant children endure unimaginable abuse and trauma
in the hands of these criminal organizations. We need to try better,
and we need to do better to provide protections to these children and
ensure that they will not continue to be traumatized or abused once
they cross our borders.
For example, our bill also provides that children cannot be released
into the custody of a relative or sponsor who could potentially inflict
even more harm upon them. No sex offender, no child abuser, and no
other dangerous criminal should be given the responsibility to care for
one of these children.
We also need to remove some of the pull factors that encourage
migrants to make this dangerous journey to our border in the first
place. Many smugglers, known colloquially as coyotes, know our
immigration laws better than most Americans, and they know how to
exploit them, as I said.
There is no doubt our backlogged legal system is one of the pull
factors for these migrants. One of the biggest selling points for the
smugglers is the immigration court backlog, which is currently 1.3
million cases. On average, it takes 2\1/2\ years to get from the border
to an immigration judge.
A person or family can come here illegally and present weak or
virtually nonexistent asylum claims with an almost certain guarantee
that they will be able to stay in the United States for years while
their claims are being adjudicated. That needs to change. Our
legislation takes a number of steps to reduce the wait times and
eliminate the backlog as a draw for even more illegal immigration and
ensure that meritorious claims are recognized in a timely manner.
The first part of this is, we need to hire more people. We need more
immigration judges. We need more asylum officials. We need litigation
teams and other staff who play a role in these legal proceedings. The
only way to eliminate this backlog is to work through it, and this bill
allows us to hire hundreds of people to do just that.
Our legislation includes another important change to remove this
backlog as a pull factor. During surge events like we are experiencing
now, the cases of those arriving will be prioritized. In other words,
we will put them at the front of line, not the back of the line where
we will never get to them. For those with legitimate asylum claims,
that should be good news. About 10 or 12 percent of the people who show
up on our front doormat have legitimate asylum claims that are upheld
by immigration judges, and we should provide them a timely hearing in
front of a judge so they can receive the benefit of U.S. law.
But this will also serve as a deterrent for those who know their
asylum claims are weak. Why pay smugglers thousands of dollars to reach
the United States if your case will quickly be heard and dismissed for
lack of merit resulting in your return? That is one of the pull factors
that we can establish and we can improve to deter people from wasting
their hard-earned money with nonexistent or weak asylum claims.
And, finally, the bill will ensure that migrants are treated fairly
and humanely so we can be confident that our asylum system is working
as we intended. This legislation includes a large number of other
commonsense measures to alleviate staffing shortages, improve
coordination between Federal, State, and local officials, expand
language translation and legal orientation services for migrants, and
the list goes on.
Former Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost once described this surge in
migration as like holding a bucket under the faucet. It doesn't matter
how many buckets you have if you can't turn off the water. In the short
term, we do need a bigger bucket. That includes facilities to process
these migrants and personnel to adjudicate their asylum claims. But it
won't matter how big that bucket is if we don't stop the flow or at
least reduce it.
We need to eliminate the pull factors that encourage migrants who do
not qualify under our law for asylum from even attempting the dangerous
journey to our border in the first place. That is exactly why the
Bipartisan Border Solutions Act is the answer or an answer to the
crisis at hand.
This bill will deter illegal immigration without interfering with
legitimate claims. It will ensure that migrants' claims are processed
efficiently, without skipping important steps, and it will provide
critical protections for children who come here alone.
The fact that we have a bill that is bipartisan and bicameral is a
testament to the commonsense reforms included in this legislation, and
I have been proud to work with Senator Sinema, Congressman Cuellar, and
Congressman Gonzales on this bill, and we would invite our colleagues
to look at the bill and join us in cosponsoring it on a bipartisan
basis.
Now, one thing I can guarantee is this is not the end-all, be-all.
This is not some silver bullet that is going to solve all of our
problems, but what I think it will do is help restore public confidence
that we are serious about enforcing our laws, while remaining generous
in providing legal claims the benefit of a hearing and validation.
We are, in fact, the most generous Nation in the world when it comes
to legal immigration--naturalizing, roughly, a million people a year.
But the truth is, my State and all our States, those of us on this bill
currently, have borne the brunt of this crisis because of the failures
of the Federal Government to deal with them.
So we have developed a list of bipartisan cosponsors, and I hope the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee and
[[Page S2175]]
the minority leader will commit to working with us to solve this crisis
in a fair and humane way.
And the last thing I will say is, we are all ears if somebody has a
better idea, but so far we haven't seen anybody step up and say: I have
got an answer or at least a partial answer or response that has
bipartisan and bicameral support.
So I hope our colleagues will take a look at this, will work with us,
and if they have got a better idea, as I said, we are all ears
____________________