[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 199 (Tuesday, November 16, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8232-S8233]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Border Security
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I will admit that I have some level of
confusion when I listen to my Republican colleagues come to the floor
and register their complaints when matched against the actual policy
positions that my Republican colleagues hold. And I want to present two
examples of my confusion this morning.
First, I have heard many of my Republican colleagues come to the
floor of the Senate and talk about their concern about price increases
in the economy today--and then register votes against the measures that
would help families afford things.
Many of my Senate Republican colleagues voted for the bipartisan
infrastructure, but more voted against it. In the House of
Representatives, there is discussion of purging from the Republican
Party any members of the House Republican conference that voted for the
infrastructure; notwithstanding the fact that in that bill is funding
that will have a deflationary impact on the economy: money for ports,
money for infrastructure, money to be able to move goods and people
more quickly across this country.
The Build Back Better agenda--the bill that is going to move before
the House and the Senate this month with no Republican support--is all
about reducing costs for average, regular Americans: reducing the cost
of healthcare, reducing the cost of energy, reducing the cost of
childcare.
Childcare expenses are driving American families crazy today--
absolutely crazy. The Build Back Better Act will reduce the cost of
childcare by 10 to $15,000 for families in my State.
Republicans oppose the Build Back Better Act because it increases
some taxes on billionaires and millionaires. It asks every corporation
to pay a minimum amount of tax so that companies, like Amazon and
Google, don't get away with paying nothing or next to nothing in tax.
The reason why so many Republicans oppose the Build Back Better
agenda is because it is about transferring economic power from the
haves--from the economic elites to folks who have been getting the
short end of the stick, who have been getting fleeced by this economy.
When Republicans had the chance to cut costs, they did it only for
billionaires and millionaires. Eighty percent of the Republican tax cut
went to the richest 1 or 2 percent of the economy.
When Democrats have control of the Senate, we deliver tax cuts for
the middle class and for the poor. We deliver cost reductions for
average American families.
Wages are going up higher than the rate of personal consumption
inflation. Right? Personal consumption inflation is just under 5
percent. Wages in the last 12 months have gone up by over 5 percent.
People are making more money. Part of the consequence of people
making more money is that some costs go up. But when Republicans were
in charge of the White House and the Congress, we just were, largely,
flat. Wages are finally going up. People are making more money.
And we are going to have legislation on the floor of the Senate that
dramatically cuts costs for average American families, and that
legislation likely will get not a single Republican vote.
Republicans' priorities, historically, have been to deliver benefits
to the wealthy, to the elites, to their corporate friends. And so when
faced with a very different agenda--an agenda that is all about cost
reduction, tax cuts for average families, for families making $30,000 a
year, for plumbers, for teachers, for factory workers, for janitors--
not a single Republican vote.
So therein lies my confusion that I hear a lot of my Republican
colleagues--Republican colleagues that I like, that I respect--come to
the floor and complain about costs and then refuse to deliver a single
vote for the most significant legislation to reduce costs for families
that this body has considered during my time in the Senate.
Here is my second reason for confusion. Now, encounters with migrants
without documentation has come down at the border 3 months in a row--
pretty dramatic reduction, in fact, when it comes to unaccompanied
minors and families. That is because this President's policies are
working.
That is probably the reason you don't hear as many Republicans coming
down to the floor talking about the surge at the border. But
Republicans have been down here consistently for months talking about
the crisis they described at the border.
And so my confusion here is connected to their avowed concern about
the surge at the border and then their decision to oppose a Homeland
Security budget that would help us address those escalating numbers at
the border.
Right now, Senate Republicans are refusing to negotiate with
Democrats on a budget for 2021 and 2022. That is what is going on right
now. Historically, we always had differences when it comes to our
priorities in the budget, but we always sat down and negotiated. Right
now, Senate Republicans are boycotting discussions over a budget. And
one of the theories is that many Republicans would like to see a
continuing resolution--the Trump spending levels continued for the rest
of 2021, 2022.
Let me tell you what the impact of that would be when it comes to our
operations at the border. I want to explain this because I have the
honor to chair the Appropriations Subcommittee overseeing the
Department of Homeland Security, and we, just a few weeks ago,
introduced a budget for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal
year 2022. But if this budget or a version of it negotiated with
Republicans doesn't pass, the result is catastrophe at the border.
This budget includes $178 million for medicine and medical contracts
for unaccompanied children that arrive at our border--desperately
needed medical care for all of these children and families that are
arriving at the border. None of it would be available if we went on a
continuing resolution. We would have a health crisis at the border.
There is $130 million for three permanent multipurpose, multiagency
facilities, which will streamline the processes of individuals who
present at the border. Right now, we have these megaexpensive,
inhumane, soft-sided facilities. That significant investment at the
border cannot happen if we have a continuing resolution.
[[Page S8233]]
There is $25 million in this budget for increased transportation
costs, allowing Border Patrol to reduce overcrowding in facilities,
moving individuals from crowded facilities to facilities that have
room. None of that transportation money is available in a CR, which
means the overcrowding gets worse.
But the crisis is even bigger because without a new budget, we can't
pay the Border Patrol. We will have a $770 million payroll shortfall--
almost $1 billion payroll shortfall--if we have a CR in the Department
of Homeland Security rather than a new budget.
That will cripple our ability to manage the border. That will either
mean massive layoffs of CBP personnel, USCIS personnel, or it will mean
a massive reprogramming in which the Biden administration is forced to
take money from cybersecurity and put it onto the border or steal money
from the Coast Guard in coastal defense and put it on the border.
One independent study showed that a decrease of just 33 CBP officers
at our ports of entry would decrease GDP by $66 million and lead to a
loss of over 1,000 jobs. Why? Because at our ports of entry, when you
have a massive downsizing of personnel, wait times go up, businesses
lose money.
If we are on a CR and we don't pass a budget, Coast Guard readiness
is compromised. The money in this budget for a new offshore patrol
cutter, for national security cutters, for the sustainment of the aging
rotary wing aircraft fleet--unavailable. So our Coast Guard readiness
continues to suffer, compromising U.S. national security.
We all know that cybersecurity is an increasing existential threat to
the United States, and so this budget proposes a significant increase
in our cybersecurity defenses. How is the Department of Homeland
Security, without a budget if a CR is extended through the end of the
year--we can't adjust any of our funding programs or priorities when it
comes to cybersecurity. We are essentially stuck in a pre-SolarWinds
environment in the Department of Homeland Security without the ability
to adjust for current threats.
Finally, we will just be wasting a ton of taxpayer money. I will give
you one example. Right now, we have thousands of empty ICE detention
beds--thousands of empty ICE detention beds. We pay contractors to
maintain these beds, to staff these beds, but there is nobody in them
and there is likely not going to be anybody in those beds for the
entirety of fiscal year 2022.
But if you are on a continuing resolution and don't pass a new budget
negotiated together, Republicans and Democrats, then we are paying for
beds we don't need. We are just wasting taxpayer dollars.
If we don't pass a budget, if we don't update the appropriations bill
for the Department of Homeland Security, we are going to be gutting our
border protection, we are going to be costing the economy billions of
dollars, we are going to be compromising the defense of this Nation,
and we are going to be wasting taxpayer dollars.
We are sent here to be proper and responsible stewards of our
constituents'--our taxpayers'--hard-earned dollars. They don't like
sending their money to Washington, but they do so under the belief that
we are going to be careful about how we spend it.
By just extending 2021 spending levels to 2022, especially when it
comes to the defense of this Nation, especially when it comes to the
protection of our borders, a CR could be disastrous as much as it is
wildly irresponsible.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week, the Senate will consider
Jonathan Kanter's nomination to be Assistant Attorney General for the
Justice Department's Antitrust Division.
Mr. Kanter is a distinguished antitrust lawyer with decades of
experience in the public and private sectors. He received his
undergraduate degree from the State University of New York at Albany
and his law degree from Washington University School of Law.
After graduating, he worked as an attorney for the Federal Trade
Commission's Bureau of Competition. He then went on to spend more than
20 years in private practice as an antitrust lawyer. During that time,
Mr. Kanter has become a highly influential advocate for strong and
meaningful antitrust enforcement, with a special focus on the digital
economy.
And he has earned support from across the political spectrum. Nine
former heads of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division--
representing every presidential administration going back to Gerald
Ford--submitted a letter urging the Senate to quickly confirm Mr.
Kanter.
These former leaders of the Antitrust Division wrote: ``Jonathan
Kanter has the talent and the leadership skills to do the job well. . .
. He knows the substance of antitrust. He appreciates its importance to
the American consumer. . . . In short, we believe Mr. Kanter is right
for this important position.''
The members of the Senate Judiciary Committee agree. Mr. Kanter was
voted out of the committee by voice vote, a testament to his bipartisan
support.
With his extensive experience as an antitrust lawyer, deep knowledge
of the law, and masterful understanding of the challenges facing
antitrust law enforcers, Mr. Kanter would be an outstanding addition to
the Justice Department.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.