[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 14, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1923-S1932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

              COVID-19 HATE CRIMES ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Cloture having been invoked, the Senate will 
proceed to legislative session to consider the motion to proceed to S. 
937, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. S. 937, a bill to 
     facilitate the expedited review of COVID-19 hate crimes, and 
     for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, Americans were horrified to witness a 
recent series of mass shootings involving the Asian-American and 
Pacific Islander community. On March 16, 2021, mass shootings occurred 
at three spas and massage parlors in the Atlanta metropolitan area. 
Eight people were killed, six of whom were Asian-American women, and 
one other person was wounded. The suspect was taken into custody that 
day and has been charged with multiple counts of murder. The 
investigation is continuing as to whether the suspect should be 
additionally charged with hate crimes, if he deliberately targeted 
Asian Americans with this senseless violence.
  Unfortunately, this mass shooting is not an isolated incident in the 
United States in terms of hate speech, hate crimes, and violence 
against Asian Americans in our communities. Sadly, some political 
figures have used the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic to fan the flames of 
hate by promoting stereotypes, fear, and xenophobia. Irrationally 
blaming Asian and Asian-American neighbors for the pandemic is simply 
wrong and reprehensible and can have deadly consequences.
  Let us remember that our Asian-American brothers and sisters are an 
integral part of the United Nations on so many levels. Our immigrant 
story and our diversity are some of our unique strengths, not 
weaknesses, of the United States of America.
  There are about 23 million Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in 
the United States, constituting 7 percent of the population of our 
country.
  There are approximately 2 million Asian-American owned businesses 
that generate over $700 billion in annual revenue and employ millions 
of workers.

[[Page S1924]]

  Two million Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are working on the 
frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic as first responders and in 
healthcare, law enforcement, transportation, supermarkets, and other 
service industries. Our Asian-American brothers and sisters are putting 
their lives on the line every day to help protect our communities 
during the pandemic. That is why it is so despicable to see the rise of 
anti-Asian rhetoric and hate speech by political leaders and others, 
which inevitably gives oxygen to extremist groups and individuals and 
gives license to individuals to commit hate crimes and acts of 
violence.
  The use of anti-Asian terminology and rhetoric related to COVID-19, 
such as the ``Chinese virus,'' the ``Wuhan virus,'' the ``Kung flu''--
phrases often used by former President Trump and some of his 
followers--has perpetrated an anti-Asian stigma. The use of anti-Asian 
rhetoric has resulted in Asian Americans being harassed, assaulted, and 
scapegoated for the COVID-19 pandemic.
  Since January 2020, there has been a dramatic increase in reports of 
hate crimes and incidents against those of Asian descent throughout the 
Nation. According to a recent report, there were nearly 3,800 reported 
cases of anti-Asian discrimination related to COVID-19 between March 
2020 and February 2021.
  On April 3, 2021, the New York Times ran an analysis article on the 
rising tide of Asian-American violence entitled ``Swelling Anti-Asian 
Violence: Who is Being Attacked Where.''
  The article stated:

       Over the last year, in an unrelenting series of episodes . 
     . . people of Asian descent have been pushed, beaten, kicked, 
     spit on and called slurs. Homes and businesses have been 
     vandalized. The violence has known no boundaries, spanning 
     generations, income brackets and regions. . . . Those cases 
     include the fatal attack of a Thai man in January, as well as 
     the assaults of a 91-year-old man in Oakland's Chinatown and 
     an 89-year-old woman in Brooklyn. Those episodes, and 
     other[s] . . . have terrified the Asian community.

  The article continues:

       But there is no ambiguity about the cases The Times 
     collected: These are assaults in which the assailants 
     expressed explicit racial hostility with their language, and 
     in which nearly half included a reference to the coronavirus.

  This article pointed out some sobering statistics when it comes to 
hate crimes. Over the last year, hate crimes as classified and reported 
by the police rose at a faster pace against people of Asian descent 
than hate crimes overall. In New York City and Boston, hate crimes 
overall fell while anti-Asian hate crimes spiked.
  In New York City alone, the number of hate crimes with Asian-American 
victims reported to the New York Police Department jumped to 28 last 
year, up from 3 in 2019, and so far this year, the Department is 
actively investigating or has solved 35 anti-Asian bias crimes.
  Congresswoman Grace Meng, of New York, said:

       We've gone from being invisible to being seen as subhuman. 
     We just want to be seen as American, like everyone else.

  On April 9, 2021, the Washington Post ran an article examining the 
effect of mass shootings on marginalized groups and how trauma ripples 
through those communities.
  The article stated:

       March 16 marked a turning point for many Asian Americans: 
     It was the day their community was stricken by a mass 
     shooting, becoming the latest minority group to suffer an 
     attack that killed several of its own . . . There's a 
     specific kind of grief that arises from being targeted, one 
     that more and more marginalized people in the United States 
     know too well. The shooting survivors and victims' family 
     members span geographies, races and religions, but they are 
     bonded by the shared trauma they have experienced.

  The article continues:

       These tragedies often leave many in those communities who 
     weren't directly affected feeling unsafe and traumatized. 
     After a shooting, many members of these communities say they 
     felt hyper-aware of their race and an escalated sense of fear 
     that the same could happen to them or those they love. A mass 
     shooting seems less senseless or inexplicable when it's 
     directed at one of your own.

  I recall with sorrow that in 2018 a gunman killed 11 Jewish 
worshipers at the Tree of Life in Pittsburgh.
  The article continues:

       Tree of Life Rabbi Jeffrey Myers said his synagogue 
     practices the ``ministry of presence''. . . . After mass 
     shootings, synagogue members reach out to the affected 
     communities and let them know that they're present, they're 
     listening.

  The Georgia massacre ``increases the fear level now of all Asian 
Americans who prayed, ``Am I next?'' I know how that feels to have your 
community wonder, ``Am I next?'' said Myers, a survivor of the 
deadliest attack against Jews on American soil.
  In recent weeks, flyers have recirculated at Asian-American 
restaurants--posted in the synagogue's Squirrel Hill neighborhood after 
the 2018 Pittsburgh shooting--to show their support for the Jewish 
community.
  One read:

       Many of our business members have thrived in this city, 
     particularly in Squirrel Hill, and if we shared in this good 
     fortune, then we bear the burdens.

  It was a reminder that Asian Americans and Jews share similar status 
as minority communities in the United States and now as communities 
affected by mass shootings.
  I was pleased that, shortly after taking office, President Biden 
issued a Presidential memorandum, ``Condemning and Combating Racism, 
Xenophobia, and Intolerance Against Asian Americans and Pacific 
Islanders in the United States.''
  We need to stop the hate. Referring to this global pandemic by 
anything other than its appropriate, medical names has inflamed the 
worst stereotypes, fear, and xenophobia in the face of a health crisis. 
Irrationally blaming Asian or Asian-American neighbors and random 
strangers is simply un-American. The Senate and every person in this 
country needs to call out the hate, bullying, and scapegoating whenever 
we see it and work together as one community to overcome COVID-19.
  In my home State of Maryland, I was pleased to see that, last week, 
Governor Larry Hogan announced the formation of a statewide workgroup 
charged with developing strategies, recommendations, and actions to 
address the rise in violence and discrimination targeting the Asian-
American community
  Governor Hogan named the former U.S. attorney for the District of 
Maryland, Robert K. Hur, to chair the workgroup and spearhead the 
effort. Mr. Hur was the first Asian American to serve as our U.S. 
attorney in Maryland's history, and I had the pleasure of working with 
him extensively on a number of criminal matters and civil rights issues 
during his tenure.
  I also want to commend the work of our current acting U.S. attorney 
in Maryland and our FBI Special Agent in Charge, Jennifer C. Boone. 
They put out a recent statement which condemned bigotry and hatred 
against the Asian-American and Pacific Islander community and 
encouraged members of the public to report to law enforcement incidents 
of violence, threats, and harassment.
  Shortly before the shootings in Atlanta, the U.S. Attorney's Office 
for Maryland, on March 10, 2021, launched its Civil Rights Unit to 
ensure that the full spectrum of criminal and civil statutes are 
employed in addressing hate crimes and discrimination; to conduct 
outreach to government, not-for-profit, and private entities in 
Maryland; and to help provide training and resources to local and State 
law enforcement in Maryland.
  Today, I rise in support of S. 937, the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, 
introduced by Senator Hirono of Hawaii. I am proud to be a cosponsor of 
this important legislation. I urge the Senate to pass this legislation 
without further delay.
  This legislation would direct the U.S. Department of Justice to 
designate a DOJ employee to assist with the expedited review of COVID-
19 hate crimes reported to Federal, State, and/or local law 
enforcement. The legislation would provide guidance for State and local 
law enforcement agencies to establish the online reporting of hate 
crimes or incidents and to have online reporting available in multiple 
languages; expand culturally competent and appropriate public education 
and the collection of data and public reporting of hate crimes; and 
issue guidance detailing best practices to mitigate racially 
discriminatory language in describing the COVID-19 pandemic, in 
coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the 
COVID-19 Health Equity Task Force, and community-based organizations.

[[Page S1925]]

  In the 117th Congress, I was privileged to be named as the chairman 
of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as 
the Helsinki Commission. I additionally serve as the Special 
Representative on Anti-Semitism, Racism, and Intolerance for the OSCE 
Parliamentary Assembly.
  Over the past year, the world has suffered the crippling impact of 
COVID-19, which has disproportionately affected our most vulnerable 
citizens. Racist violence has, once again, reared its ugly head in many 
OSCE participating States, including our own. I pledge to continue 
working with the Helsinki Commission and the OSCE to shine a spotlight 
on discrimination, racism, and anti-Asian violence both at home and 
abroad as we work together with our partners in the United States and 
around the world to share best practices and combat this scourge 
against our democracy and freedoms we hold so dear.
  In 2019, at the annual meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in 
Luxembourg, I chaired a section dealing with anti-Semitism. One of the 
key findings that came out of that section was that every community 
needs to work together. We are all in this together. An attack on one 
community is an attack on all of us and the freedom of all of us, and 
we must join in unity to speak with a clear, strong voice against any 
of these hate activities.
  We now need an all-hands-on-deck approach to combat anti-Asian bias, 
prejudice, discrimination, hate crimes, and violence. In working 
together--all communities--with our local, State, national, and 
international partners, along with our allies in the private sector and 
faith community, we can stem this dangerous trend and give a sense of 
peace and security back to our Asian-American brothers and sisters. It 
starts with our taking up the legislation before us and passing it 
promptly
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, we are very pleased that the Senate 
just took an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote--92 to 6--to move forward 
with legislation to fight the surge of anti-Asian violence across our 
country in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  Anti-Asian bigotry and violence is a very serious issue that has deep 
roots in our country's history. Regrettably, it has grown far worse 
over the last year. It is something that affects constituents in all of 
our States and has proud Asian-American citizens fearing for their 
safety. I have been told stories that make me ache: an older Asian 
gentleman afraid to go outside because he would be cursed at, berated, 
even spat upon. A young lady told me she would no longer take the 
subway to work because the stares at her were so angry and intense that 
it was just unnerving. Then it is worse with assaults and violence and 
even a death.
  We need to do something, and I am so glad that our Republican 
colleagues have voted with us to proceed with this legislation. This 
was never intended as gotcha legislation. It was always intended as 
bipartisan legislation, and for the information of the Senate, we are 
making good progress on reaching a bipartisan agreement with sensible, 
germane, and constructive amendments coming from Republican 
colleagues--the Senator from Kansas, the Senator from Maine--that, I 
believe, make the bill even stronger. So we want to continue with this 
bipartisan process.
  I intend the first amendment to the bill to be an amendment offered 
by Senators Moran and Blumenthal. We are working with the Republican 
leader to determine if and how many other amendments to the bill there 
will be so that we can consider them and vote on final passage without 
any gotcha or not germane amendments, but we are moving this bill 
forward because it does need to go forward with a sense of urgency.
  The legislation will send a loud and clear message that racism and 
violence against Asian Americans have no place--no place--in American 
society. We should endeavor to finish our work as quickly as possible 
and without delay.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, the United States is a beacon 
of democracy in the world, and our Nation was founded on free and fair 
elections, but if the American people don't have confidence in our 
elections, we don't have a sustainable democracy.
  What we saw this past election was confusion and chaos caused by 
inconsistent standards and last-minute changes to established election 
laws by State officials and activist judges. Yet it is not just the 
chaos from this past election that troubles Americans across the 
country. For more than a decade, growing numbers of Americans have 
become less confident that their votes were accurately cast and 
counted. If we want to continue as a thriving democracy, we have to 
reverse this trend and take action so Americans trust in free and fair 
elections. There is no other option.
  That is why I have joined my colleagues in introducing the Save 
Democracy Act to restore faith in our Federal elections and guarantee 
that voters decide the outcomes of elections, not the courts, and that 
is why I am here today to ask my colleagues to join me in passing one 
specific section of the Save Democracy Act--the Promoting Election 
Integrity by Proving Voter Identity Act--to require voter ID.
  It is pretty simple. If you want to vote in person, you will need to 
bring your current and valid ID. If you want to vote by mail, you will 
need to provide a copy of your ID. Like I said, it is pretty simple and 
straightforward. We want 100 percent participation in our elections and 
zero percent fraud. We want it to be easy to vote and hard to cheat. 
Voter ID helps us to meet that goal.
  Of course, the Democrats will do anything to fight against these 
commonsense reforms. It is absurd. You have to have ID to drive a car, 
board a plane, open a bank account, and pick up a prescription. Do they 
object to that? Of course not. These are much needed, commonsense 
reforms to our election systems.
  Just look at what is happening in Georgia. Two recent news articles 
show that President Biden and the Democrats spread lies to pressure 
companies to boycott Georgia over commonsense voting laws even though 
the Washington Post gave President Biden four Pinocchios for his lies 
about the Georgia law.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the two 
articles I have with me today which outline how much the Democrats have 
been grossly misleading the public
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 30, 2021]

   Biden Falsely Claims the New Georgia Law `Ends Voting Hours Early'

                           (By Glenn Kessler)

       ``What I'm worried about is how un-American this whole 
     initiative is. It's sick. It's sick . . . deciding that 
     you're going to end voting at five o'clock when working 
     people are just getting off work.''--President Biden, in 
     remarks at a news conference, March 25
       ``Among the outrageous parts of this new state law, it ends 
     voting hours early so working people can't cast their vote 
     after their shift is over.''--Biden, in a statement ``on the 
     attack on the right to vote in Georgia,'' March 26
       During his first news conference, President Biden became 
     especially passionate when discussing a law being pressed by 
     Republican lawmakers in Georgia that he said was intended to 
     make it harder for people to vote. He reiterated those 
     concerns the next day in a written statement after Gov. Brian 
     Kemp (R) signed the bill into law.
       The law has come under fire for restricting the 
     distribution of food and water to people standing in line, 
     making it harder to cast absentee ballots, reducing drop 
     boxes for mail ballots, barring mobile voting places and for 
     making significant procedural changes that potentially give 
     more power to the GOP-controlled legislature in the election 
     process.
       Biden has echoed many of those concerns. But there was one 
     line in both his news conference and his statement that has 
     kept us puzzling until our puzzler was sore. It also puzzled 
     experts who have studied the new law.
       Let's take a look.


                               The Facts

       On Election Day in Georgia, polling places are open from 7 
     a.m. to 7 p.m., and if you are

[[Page S1926]]

     in line by 7 p.m., you are allowed to cast your ballot. 
     Nothing in the new law changes those rules.
       However, the law did make some changes to early voting. But 
     experts say the net effect of the new early-voting rules was 
     to expand the opportunities to vote for most Georgians, not 
     limit them.
       ``You can criticize the bill for many things, but I don't 
     think you can criticize it for reducing the hours you can 
     vote,'' said University of Georgia political scientist 
     Charles S. Bullock III. He speculated that Biden may have 
     been briefed on an early version of the bill--``there were 25 
     versions floating around''--and he did not get an update on 
     the final version.
       For instance, at one point lawmakers considered nixing all 
     early voting on Sundays, thus eliminating ``souls to the 
     polls,'' a get-out-the-vote initiative popular with 
     predominantly Black churches. But that idea was scrapped in 
     the end.
       ``One of the biggest changes in the bill would expand early 
     voting access for most counties, adding an additional 
     mandatory Saturday and formally codifying Sunday voting hours 
     as optional,'' Stephen Fowler of Georgia Public Broadcasting 
     said in an excellent and comprehensive report on the impact 
     of the new law. ``Counties can have early voting open as long 
     as 7 a.m. to7 p.m., or 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at minimum. If you 
     live in a larger metropolitan county, you might not notice a 
     change. For most other counties, you will have an extra 
     weekend day, and your weekday early voting hours will likely 
     be longer.''
       Charles Stewart III, an election expert at the 
     Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said: ``I had also 
     heard this generally reported as expanding early voting, so 
     I'm surprised by the characterization.'' He studied the 
     precise language changes at our request and said it indicated 
     an expansion of hours, especially in rural counties.
       So where would Biden get this perception that ordinary 
     workers were getting the shaft because the state would ``end 
     voting at five o'clock''? We have one clue.
       The law used to say early ``voting shall be conducted 
     during normal business hours.'' Experts said that generally 
     means 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The new law makes it specific--
     ``beginning at 9:00 AM and ending at 5:00 PM.'' A Georgia 
     election official said the change was made in part because 
     some rural county election offices only worked part time 
     during the week, not a full eight-hour day, so the shift to 
     more specific times makes it clear they must be open every 
     weekday for at least eight hours.
       But, as noted, the law also allows individual counties to 
     set the hours anywhere between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. So the 
     practical effect of the 5 p.m. reference in the law is 
     minimal.
       During the 2020 election, for instance, vote-rich Fulton 
     County, with a substantial Black population, set early-voting 
     hours at 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on most weekdays and two 
     Saturdays, though the last weekdays had 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 
     voting hours. Voting was allowed on two Sundays between 12 
     p.m. and 6 p.m.
       Under the new law, Fulton County could set the exact same 
     hours for in-person early voting--or expand them from 7 a.m. 
     to 7 p.m. every day.
       Bullock noted that one change in the law may impact early 
     voting in runoff elections. The law reduced the period 
     between the initial election and the runoff election, from 
     nine to four weeks, potentially shortening the period for 
     early voting.
       We were curious what the early-voting rules were in 
     Delaware, Biden's home state. It turns out Delaware did not 
     allow any in-person early voting in 2020. A law signed in 
     2019 will permit early voting starting in 2022. (Voting hours 
     are 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Election Day.)
       We sought an explanation from the White House for the 
     reason for Biden's remarks but did not receive an on-the-
     record response.


                           The Pinocchio Test

       Biden framed his complaint in terms of a slap at working 
     people. The law would ``end voting at five o'clock when 
     working people are just getting off work'' or ``ends voting 
     hours early so working people can't cast their vote after 
     their shift is over.''
       Many listeners might assume he was talking about voting on 
     Election Day, not early voting. But Election Day hours were 
     not changed.
       As for early voting, the law made a modest change, 
     replacing a vague ``normal business hours''--presumed to be 9 
     a.m. to 5 p.m.--to a more specific 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. time 
     period. But that's the minimum. Under the new law, counties 
     have the option to extend the voting hours so voters can 
     start casting ballots as early as 7 a.m. and as late as 7 
     p.m.--the same as Election Day in Georgia. Moreover, an 
     additional mandatory day of early voting on Saturday was 
     added and two days of early voting on Sunday were codified as 
     an option for counties.
       One could understand a flub in a news conference. But then 
     this same claim popped up in an official presidential 
     statement. Not a single expert we consulted who has studied 
     the law understood why Biden made this claim, as this was the 
     section of law that expanded early voting for many Georgians.
       Somehow Biden managed to turn that expansion into a 
     restriction aimed at working people, calling it ``among the 
     outrageous parts'' of the law. There's no evidence that is 
     the case. The president earns Four Pinocchios.
                                  ____


                     [From Fox News, Apr. 12, 2021]

 Warnock Admits to Signing Email With False Information About Georgia 
                               Voting Law

                            (By David Rutz)

       Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., admitted to signing off on 
     false information in a third-party advocacy group's email 
     that went out about the Georgia voting law after it passed.
       The Washington Post flagged an email Warnock signed from 
     the liberal nonprofit 3.14 Action as an example of Democratic 
     misinformation about the sweeping Georgia voting reforms, as 
     it claimed the new law restricted weekend early voting and 
     ended no-excuse mail voting.
       ``Sen. Raphael G. Warnock, one of two new Democratic 
     senators representing Georgia, signed an email sent out by 
     the advocacy group 3.14 Action after the law passed, which 
     claimed it ended no-excuse mail voting and restricted early 
     voting on the weekends--also early proposals that did not 
     become law,'' the Post reported.
       Those ideas were considered but did not make it into the 
     final bill, which actually expands early voting in Georgia to 
     17 days, including two Saturdays. It also still allows no-
     excuse absentee voting, albeit with a shorter window of 67 
     days to apply.
       The statement went out on March 30, five days after Georgia 
     Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, signed the final bill into 
     law.
       A Warnock campaign spokesperson told Fox News it approved 
     the text of the group's email before Kemp signed the bill, 
     while the provisions were still under consideration. The 
     spokesperson noted the Georgia Senate passed a bill to end 
     no-excuse absentee voting earlier in March, and the Georgia 
     House originally proposed restricting weekend early voting.
       However, neither provision made it into the final bill, as 
     the 3.14 Action statement Warnock signed appeared to claim.
       The law has been the subject of fierce controversy, with 
     President Biden and other Democrats likening it to racist 
     ``Jim Crow''-era restrictions. Kemp and other state 
     Republicans have pushed back on the criticism and said the 
     reforms strengthen voting integrity.
       Biden has also disseminated false information about the 
     law, getting Four Pinocchios from The Washington Post's Fact-
     Checker for claiming the law limits voting hours.
       The firestorm around the law has already economically hurt 
     Georgia. Bowing to liberal pressure and outrage from Georgia-
     based corporations like Delta and Coca-Cola, Major League 
     Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred pulled the 2021 All-Star 
     Game out of Atlanta's Truist Park, costing the area up to an 
     estimated $100 million in potential revenue.
       Warnock said he was disappointed by MLB's decision but 
     framed it as the fault of Republicans, calling it an 
     ``unfortunate'' consequence of the voting bill.
       ``It is my hope that businesses, athletes, and entertainers 
     can protest this law not by leaving Georgia but by coming 
     here and fighting voter suppression head on, and hand-in-hand 
     with the community,'' he said in a statement.
       The new Georgia lawmaker is a staunch supporter of the For 
     The People Act, a sweeping national voting bill which 
     Republicans have slammed as a massive federal overreach and 
     Democratic power grab.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. It just goes to show you how out of touch the 
Democrats really are.
  All my Republican colleagues and I want to see is more Americans 
vote, and I am thankful Senators Barrasso and Cramer are joining me in 
this effort today. We want a vibrant democracy in which citizens are 
engaged and participating in government at every level.
  Sadly, the Democrats are refusing to work with us to protect our 
voting systems. Instead, the Democrats want to make it easier to cheat 
and harder to stop election fraud. That is why the Democrats are 
pushing H.R. 1, which would perpetuate distrust in our elections, 
impose anti-democratic mandates, and further erode our country's 
institutions. H.R. 1 is the most radical piece of voting legislation 
this Nation has ever seen at a time when restoring confidence in 
elections has never been more important.
  H.R. 1 removes the most basic safeguards against election fraud. The 
Democrat solution to election security is the same as their solution to 
all problems: a completely inept, big-government approach that fails at 
every level.
  Before continuing, I would like to yield to my colleague from Wyoming 
and thank him for his leadership on this effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to join my colleague from 
Florida, former Governor and now U.S. Senator, and talk about the Save 
Democracy Act and the issues that are facing our Nation today, and I 
want to

[[Page S1927]]

do that because over the past several weeks, Democrats, the media, 
their corporate allies have been misleading the American people about 
our voting laws.
  Democrats have been pushing a false narrative all around the country, 
trying to scare Americans into pushing and pressuring Congress into 
passing a Federal election takeover.
  Federal election laws and State election laws, as guided by our 
Constitution, say that it is States that should be making the decisions 
about how we run our elections at home. But what you see coming out of 
the Democrats in their H.R. 1--that is called S. 1--is a law that 
changes things dramatically and takes decisions out of the folks at 
home in Wyoming and puts them in the hands of folks in Washington, DC. 
People in Wyoming, as I talked to them the last 2 weeks, don't want 
anything to do with that.
  Now, Democrats have this listed as their No. 1 priority bill for the 
year; otherwise, why would they have listed it as No. 1? Not 
coronavirus, not pandemic, not infrastructure--no, taking elections 
away from the States, putting them in the hands of Washington.
  The bill is over 800 pages long. Virtually every page would, I 
believe, make it easier to cheat. That is not what the American people 
want. They want to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat.
  The bill, H.R. 1, now S. 1, expands ballot harvesting, which is where 
paid political operatives, unsupervised, can go door to door, nursing 
home bed to nursing home bed, picking up people's ballots and deciding 
which ballots to turn in and which ballots to destroy.
  The bill would register people automatically when they sign up for 
Medicaid or assistance in other forms from the government. It would 
force taxpayers to fund political campaigns and political operatives. 
Paying for campaign ads, your tax dollars would go for that and things 
that--a candidacy you are not for, and you would be paying for their 
ads and their computer time and their web pages and their yard signs. 
People in Wyoming don't want that.
  When I describe each one of these to the people of Wyoming, they say: 
Don't let that happen to America.
  I think many Democrats haven't read the 800 pages, and I know if the 
American people read the 800 pages, they would be just as upset as the 
people in Wyoming who have heard what is in the bill.
  The American people want security in elections. We want integrity, 
accountability, transparency in how it all works, and that is why I am 
so proud to be here and supporting Senator Scott and cosponsoring, 
along with Senator Hyde-Smith and Senator Lummis, a bill that gives 
confidence to people in elections, because our bill--overall bill bans 
voter harvesting. It says no to automatic registration. It requires at 
least a Social Security number to register to vote. Under our bill, you 
could still vote by mail, as people have done year after year in 
Wyoming--done it very successfully. You just need to request a ballot, 
say your information is up-to-date, and then you get the ballot in the 
mail--basic commonsense measures to protect against fraud and against 
error.
  So the differences between what we propose and what the Democrats 
propose could not be more clear. I believe the Democrat bill makes it 
easier to commit fraud; the Republican bill makes it harder to commit 
fraud.
  If the Democrat bill were good, they wouldn't need to use scare 
tactics, which they have been using all across the country, and 
wouldn't need to spread false information.
  So the people of Wyoming tell me they want elections to be fair. They 
want them to be free from voter fraud. They want it to be easier to 
vote, as I said, harder to cheat, and just basically using an 
identification card or a means to identify yourself when you go to vote 
would make common sense. That is what we do in Wyoming, and it should 
be continued to be allowed so when someone shows up to vote, they can 
just confirm that they are who they say they are.
  And that is why I am proud to stand here today with Senator Scott and 
support him on the floor
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, we can and must pass 
commonsense reforms to restore confidence in our elections.
  The easiest thing we can do right now is require voter ID. Americans 
agree this is a necessary step.
  If we are serious about working together to move our country forward, 
restore public trust, and protect the democracy our Nation cherishes, 
we need to pass my bill today, and I look forward to all my colleagues 
joining me to protect our democracy.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
the immediate consideration of S. 1130, introduced earlier today. I ask 
unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and 
passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oregon
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, my colleagues have talked about free 
and fair elections, but I am quite concerned that this bill does quite 
the opposite.
  I am really quite stunned that one would think that a bill that 
dictates exactly how every State has to use an ID law affects the 
access to the ballot box for every single American, that it would be 
requested that it would be passed with no process, no possibility of a 
committee to examine the fact that every single American voter is 
impacted by this effort to erect a barricade between the voter and the 
ballot box.
  I was thinking about how, when we were here on January 6, the boxes 
that had the electoral college votes--gorgeous, ornate, old wooden 
boxes were here on the counter, and they are just a symbol of the 
pulsating heart of our Republic, the ability of every citizen to 
participate in the vision for their country, how their country will 
operate, how their children will have an opportunity to thrive--that 
ballot box.
  So here is a bill designed to make it harder to get your voice heard, 
harder to get your ballot counted, being asked to be considered by this 
Chamber with absolutely no process of committee deliberation.
  If we had such a process, it would be pointed out that currently 
millions of Americans don't have the IDs required in this measure. 
Well, that makes it a lot harder for millions of Americans to vote.
  It would also be pointed out in the committee process that of those 
who don't have those IDs, about three times as many Black Americans 
don't have those IDs as White Americans, even though Black Americans 
are a much smaller percentage of the American population, which means 
that this measure is hugely discriminatory against Black Americans. And 
it is just wrong to engage in that type of discrimination in an effort 
to manipulate the outcome of elections.
  Now, it would be quite a different conversation if we had evidence 
that there were an actual, real problem being addressed. But, 
fortunately, this has been studied time and time and time again. We had 
the Governor of Michigan testifying here on Capitol Hill just a few 
days ago, and we asked when they did the study--the investigation 
because of the lawsuits that were filed related to the last election--
how many people voted illegally in vote by mail. And that effort to 
find the evidence of fraud turned out, she said, zero. Zero.
  And I asked her a question because I was stunned that it was zero. 
Certainly one person who thought they were a citizen but wasn't a 
citizen and voted who was found? Zero. Zero.
  And there is study after study after study. So we understand what 
this is, and that is what would be explored in committee. It is an 
effort to make it harder for Americans to vote.
  It is not about security because there is not a security problem. It 
is about the fact that this disproportionately affects low-income 
Americans and Black Americans.
  So I stand here today considering whether to object because I believe 
in that vision of Americans having a full, free, fair chance to be 
involved in their elections, defending the ballot box for every single 
American, and this bill does the opposite.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.

[[Page S1928]]

  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, my goal is 100 percent 
participation and zero percent fraud. It is not voter suppression or 
racist to prove your identity for in-person voting. It is not voter 
suppression or racist to prove your identity for mail-in voting. It is 
not voter suppression or racist to require ballot boxes to be 
monitored. It is not voter suppression or racist to make sure your vote 
is in on time.
  My colleague wants to call any attempt to fight fraud in our 
elections voter suppression. My colleague wants to call any attempt to 
fight fraud in elections racist. That is just not accurate.
  Voter ID should not be controversial. You need an ID to get on a 
plane, open a bank account, drive a car--even an ID to get into the 
White House. But we shouldn't have an ID to vote for the President? It 
just doesn't make sense.
  Americans believe in voter ID. It is a logical step to make our 
elections more secure, and it is a simple change we can pass today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                         American Manufacturing

  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first, I want to say I want to thank 
the Senator from Oregon for objecting to the previous motion, and I 
share his concerns.
  I rise today to speak about some big choices our Nation has to make. 
Will we continue to limp along with an economy that works for only a 
few wealthy people or will we invest in making things in America and in 
our infrastructure and, most importantly, in our people?
  Will we continue to allow other countries to outpace us on technology 
while remaining dependent on critical parts made on the other side of 
the globe or will we seize a future that is made in America?
  And will we continue to ignore the climate crisis and leave it for 
the next generation to deal with and leave an even bigger catastrophe 
or will we take action right now--right now--to put our Nation on a 
path to a future of good-paying jobs fueled by clean energy?
  I have often said that in Michigan we don't have an economy unless 
someone makes something and somebody grows something. That is what we 
do in Michigan. We make things and grow things. And I know that my 
friend, the Presiding Officer from Minnesota, feels the same--making 
things, growing things. That is how we have an economy. It has been the 
secret to our success in Michigan and in so many other places around 
the country. We need to make things, and we need to grow things.
  Unfortunately, while we have been talking about making things for a 
long time, the rest of the world has actually been acting.
  It is estimated that the Chinese Government has invested at least 
$100 billion to support its electric vehicle industry. That might be 
why they have hundreds of companies making electric vehicles.
  You can't build a competitive auto industry without electric 
vehicles, and you can't build electric vehicles without a whole lot of 
batteries and a whole lot of other component parts. They could all be 
made here, but most of them aren't.
  Right now, none of the major electric vehicle battery providers are 
American companies. They could be if we helped partner with them to 
make that happen.
  And we have seen what happens when our automakers depend on 
semiconductors made overseas. Over the past few months, a shortage of 
computer chips no bigger than a Kellogg's cornflake have idled multiple 
plants and led to layoffs in Michigan and across the country.
  In fact, the Alliance for Auto Innovation estimates that U.S. 
automakers will produce a million fewer cars this year because of this 
shortage of this little chip.
  It is not enough to say we need to build things in America. We all 
know that. But we can't build things here without first investing in 
our capacity and having a national strategy to build things here in 
America. Thankfully, we have a President of the United States who 
understands that. He understands the moment we are in and is ready to 
meet the moment.
  Now it is time for Congress to step up. Senate Democrats are excited 
and ready to take action, working with the President of the United 
States and hopefully working with our colleagues across the aisle, in 
this moment for America and America's future.
  It is important to note that it won't be the first time that actions 
we have taken here have had lasting consequences. More than 100 years 
ago, Henry Ford and Thomas Edison partnered to build an affordable 
electric car. That was the first kind of car they wanted to make--an 
electric car. They even built several prototypes in Dearborn, MI. The 
challenge, Ford told the New York Times in 1914, was ``to build a 
storage battery of light weight which would operate for long distances 
without recharging.'' Sound familiar? That is a challenge most of our 
automakers are very familiar with.
  Interestingly, around the same time, in 1916, Congress passed a 
change to the tax laws that in effect provided oil and gas companies 
interest-free loans. It was America's first fossil fuel subsidy.
  Perhaps it is no surprise, then, that given the various issues and 
struggles and costs, Ford chose to focus on an internal combustion 
engine.
  Just thinking about it, more than 100 years later, we are still 
lighting prehistoric plants and animals on fire to get to the grocery 
store and to get to work.
  Now, it is true that my home State of Michigan benefited from these 
choices. We put the world on wheels. We are extremely proud of our 
place in history and extremely proud of the wonderful workers, the 
skill and ability of our workers. But I also understand that we would 
have been better off today if the issues of carbon pollution had been 
addressed at the very beginning.
  The good news is that we have the opportunity now to fulfill Ford and 
Edison's electric vision. Just last week, I toured GM's new Factory 
ZERO, which soon will be building electric Hummers and electric Chevy 
Silverado trucks. These are big vehicles, and they are going to be all 
electric. It is very exciting. Stellantis has plans to build four new 
electric hybrid Jeeps in Detroit, and Henry Ford's company is investing 
more than $22 billion to introduce electric versions of its vehicles, 
including Mustangs, Ford F-150 trucks, and commercial vans--all very 
exciting.
  These changes are what we need right now, but our car companies can't 
do it without a partnership with us, with the Federal Government. Just 
as companies around the world have not had to do it alone, we need to 
make sure we are partnering with them to actualize this vision for the 
future.
  You know, the oil companies like to say--whenever we talk about 
various incentives for wind or solar or electric vehicles or batteries, 
they always like to say: We shouldn't be picking winners and losers in 
our country. But I would argue that in 1916, with the first fossil fuel 
subsidy, our country picked a winner, and they have been subsidized 
over and over again and winning the energy race ever since. In fact, 
that subsidy is to the tune of at least $20 billion every year. Even in 
the tax cuts in 2017, the Republican tax cuts for the wealthiest and 
most well-connected people in the country, there was even another new 
foreign oil tax break in there.
  I would argue it is time to give equal opportunity to competing 
technology and level the playing field. At the same time, we can create 
good-paying jobs here at home, revitalize American manufacturing, and 
put America in the driver's seat of the clean energy future. That, we 
can do--that is so exciting to do--if we work with our President to get 
this done.
  If we are going to build back better, it is time to start building. 
The first thing we can do is to pass the American Jobs Plan, which 
invests in American manufacturing, creates an American supply chain for 
products and technologies, and strengthens ``Buy American'' laws. This 
plan has been long overdue, I can tell you, and it is just the start of 
what we need to do.
  My bipartisan American Jobs in Energy Manufacturing Act, which I 
introduced with Senator Manchin and Senator Daines, would provide 
incentives for manufacturers to build and retool existing plants to 
make advanced energy parts like semiconductors and batteries and retool 
for electric vehicle

[[Page S1929]]

facilities. It builds on the successful 48C advanced energy 
manufacturing tax credit, which I authored in 2009. That helped boost 
U.S. manufacturing and create good-paying jobs then, and we can do it 
now.
  On the Finance Committee, we are also working on legislation that 
would provide an investment tax credit for building American battery, 
semiconductor, and solar cell plants and a corresponding tax credit for 
producing these key components.

  I am so pleased that President Biden's American Jobs Plan includes 
electric charging stations as part of our infrastructure investment--it 
certainly is part of our infrastructure for the future, for today and 
tomorrow--and consumer incentives to purchase electric vehicles.
  We also need to make sure that American taxpayer dollars are spent on 
American products. You know, that sounds simple, but that is actually 
not what is being done in every case right now, even though we have had 
laws on the books for decades and decades and decades.
  My bipartisan Make It in America Act with Senator Braun makes it 
harder for Federal Agencies to use waivers to get around ``Buy 
American'' rules to purchase foreign-made products. Right now, there 
has not been enough accountability and structure to make sure that 
waivers are not being given so that purchases can be made of foreign 
cars. That needs to stop.
  I also want to thank Senator Tammy Baldwin for her leadership on 
these ``Buy American'' issues as well.
  The Federal Government is an enormous consumer, and we are set to 
make big infrastructure investments. ``Buy American'' rules means that 
American dollars flow into local economies when we purchase American-
made PPE and American-made iron and steel and great American-made 
electric vehicles. These rules also create good jobs, and we will need 
highly trained workers to fill them. By investing in our workforce, 
which is an important part of this plan, we will help the 18 million 
Americans currently on unemployment find new opportunities--and others 
as well--new opportunities for good jobs and will ensure that our young 
people are on a path for good-paying jobs, including skilled trades, 
after high school.
  I am laser-focused on supporting our community colleges and uplifting 
and expanding registered apprenticeship programs because these 
institutions and programs help build our middle class and ensure 
working people have the skills they need to thrive, not just survive. 
These are great-paying jobs, professional jobs, licensed, highly 
skilled jobs, and we need to be encouraging more and more young people 
to be able to choose these jobs.
  Henry Ford once said this, one of my favorite quotes:

       What's right about America is that, although we have a mess 
     of problems, we have great capacity--intellect and 
     resources--to do something about them.

  There is no doubt that we face big challenges, but Henry Ford was 
right: We do have great capacity, intellect, and resources to do 
something about them. Now is the time to do that, to act. People in 
Michigan have been waiting long enough, waiting way too long, and 
people across the country have waited far too long for us to act on 
what we know we can do to make things in America, to remake things in 
America, to build back better. We can make this an American moment, or 
we can sit back and wait for the future to happen to us.
  This is the moment to invest in our workers who build our country's 
infrastructure, including those things we need today that they didn't 
need 100 years ago, like high-speed internet and electric charging 
stations, and the things that we will need to make us successful and 
global leaders moving forward.
  We need to rebuild our supply chains in America so we are not being 
held up because of a really important part that is made only in one 
country halfway around the world. That is absurd. We can do that. We 
can do that. We can do that by deciding we are going to invest in 
America. And we need to use the power of American ingenuity to ensure a 
livable and prosperous future for everyone.
  This is the moment to act. I am excited about that. I know that we 
have this moment right now to be able to jump-start the future, to be 
able to build our economy back better, to make things in America, and I 
hope we will seize this moment
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                        COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today I express my concern over the 
rise in violent crime and in particular the hate crimes against Asian 
Americans and Pacific Islanders.
  Every single one of us ought to be horrified to see our fellow 
Americans attacked because of their race or ethnicity. We are united in 
our opposition to this hateful violence. We are united in seeing it 
investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I 
introduced a resolution to this effect, and I will welcome all my 
Senate colleagues to join me.
  I am very happy to see that Attorney General Garland has turned his 
attention to this problem. On March 30, he directed the Department of 
Justice to engage in a 30-day review of the Department's response to 
hate crimes. I hope the Senate will benefit from the results of that 
review. However, our responses to the problem of hate crimes must be 
guided by the facts and a pursuit of sound policy. I am not sure that 
we have done the legwork to arrive at a legislative solution that will 
make a difference to preventing, deterring, and punishing these crimes.
  Along with my colleague Senator Cotton, the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice and Counterterrorism, we are 
requesting a full or subcommittee hearing on the issue, and we should 
do that after the Attorney General's review has been completed.
  We now have before the Senate S. 937, the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, 
being introduced before the Attorney General's review began and appears 
to be duplicative or even in conflict with some of the DOJ's existing 
efforts. This does not seem to me to be the best path, but that is the 
path the Senate is on now, and I voted to proceed hours ago to S. 937. 
I am thankful that it is coming up. I know that Members of the 
Republican caucus have amendments that will hopefully improve the bill 
and make it a very useful piece of legislation.
  We hope these amendments will be listened to and fairly considered by 
our Democratic colleagues. This is too important of an issue to get 
wrong.


                           Election Security

  Madam President, now, on another point. Between Democrats who believe 
Russia rigged the vote to elect Trump in 2016 and Republicans who 
believe various theories questioning Biden's election victory, they all 
add up to what seems to be a bipartisan supermajority of Americans 
casting doubt about our elections. In fact, one prominent claim by some 
Trump supporters that a particular brand of voting machine switched 
Trump votes to Biden appears to have been plagiarized from the 
Democratic Party's playbook from the election of 2004.
  I heard from many left-leaning Iowans at that time who questioned 
President Bush's victory based on claims that a particular brand of 
voting machine switched votes in Ohio. That was 2004. It seems kind of 
similar, doesn't it, today.
  Those totally unsubstantiated claims ultimately led Democrats to 
force a vote in a joint session of Congress in 2005 to reject Ohio's 
electoral votes cast for President Bush. There are still Democratic 
Members of Congress in both Chambers who voted to overturn Ohio State's 
certified election in 2004.
  Now, after the 2018 gubernatorial election in Georgia, the losing 
Democratic candidate refused to concede, claiming, without evidence 
that would stand up in court, that she, as a Democratic candidate for 
Governor of Georgia, would have won but for voting irregularities. Now, 
rather than distance itself from questioning a certified election in 
2018, the Democratic Party invited her to speak at their convention in 
2020.
  Two years later, the tables are now turned. Trump lost Georgia by a 
far smaller margin than that Democratic candidate for Governor in 
Georgia in 2018 did, but we are now told that to suggest that there 
were flaws in the 2020 Georgia election is somehow unacceptable and 
undermining democracy.

[[Page S1930]]

  It is pretty obvious, after this history, that we need to break the 
cycle of partisans questioning elections when their side lost or it is 
OK to complain when their side lost, but if the other side does the 
same thing, there is something wrong with it. So there is a lesson for 
both Republicans and Democrats. Both parties must stop finger-pointing, 
stop blaming, and stop the partisan accusations. We all need to work 
together to restore Americans' faith in elections.
  So that brings me to something very current because it passed the 
House of Representatives. So that brings me to the Democrats' so-called 
For the People Act. Incidentally, don't you find that name a little 
creepy? So often in history, when people claim to speak for ``the 
people,'' they were just seeking power.
  For the People Act was introduced after the 2018 elections as a clear 
political statement to build the hyperpartisan narrative that 
Democratic defeats were due to widespread voter suppression.
  Now, we always hear about voter suppression before and since the 2020 
election, but just think of the historic turnout--not only the historic 
turnout that the losing candidate had but the historic turnout that the 
winning candidate had. And yet we have voter suppression.
  H.R. 1 was then, and remains, a hastily cobbled together collection 
of every Democratic proposal for new election mandates. No care was 
taken to make it cohesive or workable. It is evident that State and 
local election officials were not consulted in its drafting.
  You know, just to consider the size of the bill, the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965, I think, was only two pages. For the People Act, the bill 
introduced--or heard--before the Senate Rules Committee is 800 pages.
  Now, that bill that I just talked about had actually passed the House 
in 2019 on party lines and was placed directly on the Senate calendar 
at Senator Schumer's request. Now, this is very typical of political 
messaging bills so the minority leader can force a vote to proceed. I 
assume, in 2019, that Senator Schumer did not force the Senate vote to 
take up the bill because partisan activists got more traction out of 
blaming Leader McConnell for not bringing it up. Regardless, in 2019, 
it was clearly designed as a messaging bill and not one designed to 
ever get to the President's desk.
  Now, in 2021, we are back at it again, considering a totally partisan 
messaging bill that would radically rework all States' election 
systems, where it has been in the Constitution the primary concern of 
the State legislators and Congress seldomly intervening. I suppose the 
most obvious is that on a certain date in November we all have 
Presidential elections and congressional elections on the same date in 
all 50 States, but beyond that, it is pretty much up to each State how 
they want to conduct their elections.
  So how does this bill, passing the House, once again, over here in 
the Senate--how does that jibe with the message from Democrats just a 
couple of months ago that State-run elections are beyond reproach? 
Don't you remember? Because all 50 States had State-certified 
elections, that gave Biden his win.
  Now, it is pretty common sense. Either State-run elections are 
fundamentally flawed and unfair, requiring massive Federal intervention 
and Americans who question the outcome are taking a moral stand, or 
State-run elections are, by and large, very fair, and Americans can 
have confidence in the outcomes.
  Either way, the same principle should apply to the last several 
elections whether Republicans or Democrats were relatively more 
successful in each case. I get it. I get it that having unleashed this 
partisan tiger--the bill that came from the House of Representatives--
it is very hard to get that partisan tiger back in the cage.
  But when this bill fails, as it must, we need to tamp down the 
partisan accusations and work across party lines to restore faith in 
American elections. Now, the way the environment here is in Washington 
and in Congress, it isn't going to be easy, but the alternative is 
unthinkable
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                             Infrastructure

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to oppose 
the Democrats' latest liberal spending spree. Just over a month ago, 
Democrats put $2 trillion onto America's credit card. They said it was 
for coronavirus. That was false advertising, and that is because only 
$1 out of every $11 in the $2 trillion being spent was actually going 
to public health.
  The bill turned out to be a big payoff to the people who run the 
Democratic Party: the union bosses, the DC bureaucrats, and the 
bankrupt blue States. Democrats crammed the bill through the Senate 
with just 50 votes. Democrats haven't even finished their victory lap.
  Yet, at this time, they want another $2.3 trillion. They have already 
told us they are going to cram it through with just 50 votes, once 
again, and, once again, they are using more false advertising.
  President Biden calls this an infrastructure bill. Well, that is a 
new definition of the word ``infrastructure.'' Only about $1 out of 
every $20 would go to roads and bridges.
  Now, here are just a few other items that the Democrats call 
infrastructure: $100 billion for so-called workforce development and 
over $300 billion on housing and upgrading of Federal buildings--
Federal buildings--the ones we work in. It includes $100 billion for 
something called the greening of schools, which, when you go through 
and see what does that include, it includes making greener lunches. It 
includes eliminating paper products in the cafeterias and making the 
cafeteria trays that people use to carry their food, makes each one of 
those into trays that can be recycled.
  Call it what you will, this is not infrastructure. The largest 
spending part of the bill is $400 billion to expand Medicaid. The list 
goes on and on. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
  Now, some of the spending in the overall bill may have merit. That 
spending should go through regular order, going through committees and 
coming to the floor of the Senate for amendments and then votes.
  But it is still not infrastructure. This isn't an infrastructure 
bill. Even the White House Press Secretary admitted it. She said this. 
She said it is partly infrastructure--partly infrastructure.
  Now, the bill includes another big payoff to the union bosses because 
it forces long-term healthcare facilities to unionize if they want to 
receive the funding in the bill. There is Medicaid expansion. That 
would hurt States like Wyoming and others that protect and believe in 
the right to work.
  The bill would also hurt Wyoming because of its attack on American 
energy. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has compared the bill 
to the Green New Deal. One Democratic Senator admitted it. He said it 
is a way of accomplishing many of the goals of the Green New Deal.
  Out of all the payoffs in the bill, one of the biggest goes to the 
electric car industry. The bill would spend more money on electric cars 
than it does on roads, bridges, ports, airports, and waterways 
combined--an astonishing amount of money.
  President Biden announced the bill in one of America's greatest 
energy-producing regions, which is Western Pennsylvania. Yet energy-
producing States like Pennsylvania and Wyoming have a lot to lose from 
this bill.
  The bill would spend $10 billion on something called the Civilian 
Climate Corps. These are taxpayer-funded activists who would advance 
environmental justice. That is what it says: $10 billion to Civilian 
Climate Corps to advance environmental justice.
  And then there is another $35 billion on climate innovation and $27 
billion in clean energy and sustainability accelerator. It just seems 
that they are throwing money and names onto things. These are slush 
funds. They are going to give government bureaucrats more power to pick 
winners and losers in our economy.
  We all remember the disaster called Solyndra. It was a Silicon Valley 
startup. The last time Joe Biden was in the White House, his 
administration, along with Barack Obama, gave them $500 million--
taxpayer dollars--for so-called clean energy. We later found out that 
Solyndra lied on their loan application form, and, apparently, no one 
in

[[Page S1931]]

the administration caught it. The company went bankrupt--500 million 
taxpayer dollars gone forever.
  President Biden is bringing back this kind of central planning. It is 
all in the name, he says, of green energy. If we pass this bill, I will 
tell you that we are going to see another Solyndra and another one 
after that and another one after that.
  So how are Democrats going to pay for this piece of legislation? 
Well, they are going to cram through the largest tax increase of the 
century. They are going to use 15 years' worth of tax increases to pay 
for 8 years of spending. So the spending is temporary, but the tax 
increases will be permanent.
  If the bill becomes law, it will be harder for American companies to 
compete with companies in other countries, and the concern is that 
means more companies are going to move overseas because taxes there 
will be lower. When they do, they are going to take good American jobs 
with them.
  You know, with the Republican tax cuts that we did in 2017, we saw $1 
trillion flow back into this country in just 2 years. President Biden 
is ready to send all of that money back overseas.
  The official name of the bill is the American Jobs Plan. Yet it is 
not much of a jobs bill. The jobs this bill would allegedly create 
would cost $800,000 each job. It is a lot to pay for a single job when 
communities all across the country have outside of their businesses 
``Help wanted'' signs.
  I saw one in Afton, WY, last week. A small community in western 
Wyoming there is a convenience store, and the sign said:

       Your father called. He said you need a job. We're hiring.

  There are signs like that all over the country. Small businesses and 
small business owners I have talked to continue to say: We cannot find 
people to hire. And yet the administration has a jobs plan, they say, 
where it is going to cost taxpayers $800,000 for each job to create. At 
the same time, the bill is going to eliminate many good-paying energy 
jobs, and that is a real concern.
  Democrats are cramming this through at a time when our economy is 
already recovering. The pandemic is coming to an end. The experts say 
we are going to create 11 million more jobs over the next 4 years even 
if we don't pass the bill. And there are jobs available today.
  One analysis from the Wharton Business School said the bill would 
actually slow down the economy. That is because the bill would 
discourage businesses from investing. It is not an infrastructure bill, 
not much of a jobs bill. It is a slush fund for more liberal spending. 
That is what is on the minds of the Democrats who are pushing this bill 
forward.
  It is not what the United States needs right now. We need real 
infrastructure improvements. We need a real infrastructure bill--one 
that will build road, bridges, our waterways, and allow us to do things 
faster and better and cheaper and smarter. If Democrats want to do 
that, Republicans are ready to support it.
  Last Congress, I worked with Senator Tom Carper of Delaware on a 
bipartisan infrastructure bill in the Senate Environment and Public 
Works Committee. I chaired it in the last Congress. Our bill was so 
bipartisan that Senator Bernie Sanders voted for it, and so did I. It 
passed the committee unanimously, 21 to 0. When we went to work with 
Democrats in the House on the legislation, they ignored it and replaced 
it with the Green New Deal.
  That is what President Biden is doing right now as well. He is 
ignoring the bill we passed and trying to sneak the Green New Deal into 
law.
  So I would urge my Democratic colleagues to reverse course, to throw 
out this liberal wish list, this slush fund of liberal spending, and 
start over working in a bipartisan way with Republicans.
  We should start with a bipartisan bill that the Senate Committee on 
EPW passed last year. Instead of paying off the unions and the climate 
activists, let's rebuild our roads and our bridges and do it in a way 
that works for all Americans.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The Senator from North Carolina.


                        Remembering Alvin Sykes

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of a 
gentleman named Alvin Sykes, who passed away on March 19, 2021, in 
Kansas City, MO.
  Teddy Roosevelt once famously said, in life, ``The credit belongs to 
the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and 
sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again 
and again . . . but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows 
great enthusiasms, [the] great devotions; who spends himself in a 
worthy cause.''
  Alvin Sykes was the man in the arena. He was a man who knew great 
devotion, who dedicated himself to a worthy cause, and who helped move 
our Nation even closer to our founding promise of ``liberty and justice 
for all.''
  Alvin was born to a teenage mother. He ended his public school 
enrollment after the eighth grade, but he never ended his education. In 
his own words, Alvin transferred from public school to the public 
library.
  In the coming decades, Alvin immersed himself in learning about civil 
rights crimes and cold cases, becoming an expert on an often overlooked 
issue. He researched the history of these tragic crimes, the relevant 
laws, and the statutes of jurisdiction.
  Alvin was so well versed, when he testified about such cases before 
Congress in 2007, one Member mistakenly assumed he was an attorney. 
Alvin replied that he was not an attorney, but it was evident the 
knowledge and insight he possessed on these issues surpassed even the 
best-educated lawyers in this town.
  What made Alvin so remarkable, however, wasn't the knowledge he 
acquired but what he did with it. As he learned more about unsolved 
civil rights crimes--the ones no one talked about, the ones no one 
looked into--Alvin realized we needed a system in place to investigate 
those cold cases and uncover the truth.
  I met Alvin Sykes in 2016 through Senator Tom Coburn, a great and 
dear and missed friend today. Dr. Coburn ran into Alvin Sykes and heard 
this story and built a relationship that wasn't just personal--it was 
professional--because he wanted to help Alvin fix these wrongs.
  Through Alvin's advocacy and guidance, I joined Congressman John 
Lewis--a civil rights icon who, sadly, also passed away this last 
year--to introduce the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes 
Reauthorization Act. The legislation was named for 14-year-old Emmett 
Till, who was brutally murdered in Mississippi in 1955 and whose 
killers were acquitted.
  After we introduced the bill, Alvin did what he had been doing for 
years: He went to work. He got in the arena. And he did not stop until 
there was legislation authorizing a Department of Justice unit 
dedicated to investigating and prosecuting cold cases that remained 
unsolved from the civil rights era
  To date, the Justice Department has investigated 152 cases under this 
program. And while many others were dedicated to making this a reality 
as well, Alvin's expertise, his passion, and his persistence were 
second to none.
  Last year, Alvin reached out to me again, seeking to posthumously 
recognize Emmett Till and his mother Mamie Till-Mobley for their role 
in starting the civil rights movement. His advocacy led me to introduce 
legislation with Senator Booker to award Emmett Till and Mamie the 
Congressional Gold Medal, the Nation's highest civilian honor. I can't 
think of two individuals more worthy of it than them.
  This bill is also a worthy coda for Alvin Sykes' life and his legacy. 
You see, Alvin was born only a year after Emmett Till's mother. And 
when he first became involved in that case, he heard Emmett's mother 
Mamie say she had been fighting to get justice since 1956.
  Alvin said he thought to himself: I was born in 1956. That means she 
has been trying to do one thing my entire life.
  Now Alvin is no longer with us, but the pursuit of justice for the 
Till family continues. My hope is that Congress will soon pass this 
legislation to recognize and honor their legacy. Today, though, I want 
to give Alvin the credit and the honor he deserves. His passion, his 
advocacy, and his high achievements made our Nation a better place.

[[Page S1932]]

  Personally, I learned from Alvin Sykes. I admire Alvin Sykes. I mourn 
his passing. I pay tribute to him today and thank God that he created 
Alvin Sykes.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________