[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.