[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 21, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2107-S2117]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          MOTION TO DISCHARGE

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, pursuant to S. Res. 27, the Committee 
on Armed Services being tied on the question of reporting, I move to 
discharge the Committee on Armed Services from further consideration of 
the nomination of Colin Hackett Kahl, of California, to be Under 
Secretary of Defense for Policy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the provisions of S. Res. 27, there will 
now be up to 4 hours of debate on the motion, equally divided between 
the two leaders or their designees, with no motions, points of order, 
or amendments in order.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided 
during the quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The senior Senator from Oklahoma.


                    Nomination of Colin Hackett Kahl

  Mr. INHOFE. Let my start by urging my colleagues in the Senate to 
vote against the motion to discharge from the Senate Armed Services 
Committee the nomination of Colin Kahl for Under Secretary of Defense 
for Policy. This is not a decision I take lightly. I have always felt 
that any new administration should have his team or her team, and I 
have generally been very supportive.
  When President Biden nominated Dr. Kahl for this position, my 
expectation was that, if confirmed, he and I would often disagree on 
policy, but we would actually get along together; we could coexist 
together. I quickly learned that this would really be impossible with 
Dr. Kahl. I don't think I have ever said that about any nominee for any 
position that I can recall.
  My Republican colleagues in the Senate Armed Services Committee--all 
12 of them--reached the same conclusion. We opposed his nomination 
unanimously. That is very unusual.
  Before I explain why not a single Republican was able to support Dr. 
Kahl's confirmation in committee, I want to emphasize how rare this is. 
The Senate Armed Services Committee, as everyone knows, is extremely 
bipartisan, certainly in the years that I was chairing that committee 
with Ranking Member Jack Reed. We got along famously. We got things 
done that other people couldn't get done.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee has always been bipartisan. We 
have disagreements, of course, but Republicans and Democrats on the 
committee have a legacy of consensus. National security and taking care 
of our troops are bipartisan concerns. This is how we succeeded in 
passing the National Defense Authorization Act.
  The National Defense Authorization Act is the largest bill every 
year. It is the one where it sets out the guidelines for the coming 
year, and it is the one where we always have gotten along. We passed it 
every year for 60 consecutive years. It shows and demonstrates very 
clearly how well we get along.
  The Department deserves a nominee with bipartisan credibility. You 
have to keep in mind this position is the No. 3 position in the 
Pentagon. It represents our shared bipartisan vision of effective 
national security and healthy civil-military relations.
  This position demands a nominee who can carry out the President's 
policies while engaging those who disagree in good faith. That isn't 
the case with this nominee. That is why we are faced with this vote 
today.
  I also want to clear up a common misunderstanding. Republicans on the 
committee did not vote against Dr. Kahl simply because we disagreed 
with his policy views. Policy is what that position is. It is the 
policy position of the Pentagon. This should be obvious to anyone who 
paid attention to the confirmation of President Biden's nominees for 
Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary. We got through both of them 
quickly. I don't remember a time when any new administration got the 
two very significant positions of Secretary of Defense and Deputy 
Secretary of Defense so fast. We got them in record time. There are 
some things that we disagree with policywise, but we supported their 
confirmation, as did most of my Republican colleagues, for one reason: 
They were eminently qualified. I am talking about the Secretary of 
Defense and the Deputy Secretary. Both of them were eminently 
qualified, with long track records of bipartisan cooperation and strong 
professional judgment. I have dealt with both of them for many, many 
years.
  In fact, we expedited the nomination to give the President his 
national security team just about as quickly as we could. Republicans 
may disagree with him, but we can work with them very well.
  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Colin Kahl. The national 
security problems we face are wicked and complex. We wrestle with them 
constantly on this committee.
  What I cannot support are nominees who reduce complex national 
security conversations to partisan sound bites. For instance, as many 
of my colleagues will recall, back in October of 2019, Republicans and 
Democrats disagreed about our policy in Syria. When President Trump 
announced a full U.S. troop withdrawal from northeastern Syria, some of 
our colleagues worried about extended deployments. This is a reasonable 
concern because here is how Dr. Kahl chose to characterize it: 
Republicans are ``the party of ethnic cleansing,'' he wrote. He 
actually said that. He said that publicly.

[[Page S2108]]

  Good and kind people can disagree with each other. They don't have to 
resort to name-calling and accusations of war crimes.
  That is not an isolated example, as we discovered during our review 
of Kahl's writings and public statements. He often embraces conspiracy 
theories. For example, he alleged a ``Kushner-Kremlin quid pro quo'' 
referring to the President's son-in-law. And when given the opportunity 
to correct this type of conspiracy theory during his confirmation 
hearings, he refused to do it. He stood by those statements.
  Dr. Kahl also has a long history of claiming every policy decision 
with which he disagrees will lead to war. Thankfully, he has never been 
right.
  Dr. Kahl predicted that President Trump's decision to withdraw from 
the Iran deal would lead to war. It didn't. He said by sanctioning 
Iran's Foreign Minister, President Trump was boxing ``himself into 
war.'' There was no war. It didn't happen.
  At one point, Dr. Kahl suggested that President Trump might ``start a 
war with Iran for political diversionary purposes.'' This is a 
ridiculous claim. Obviously, it didn't happen.
  According to Dr. Kahl, the strike on Iranian terrorist leader 
Soleimani, the appointment of John Bolton as National Security Advisor, 
and the events of the Korean Peninsula, among others, were going to 
lead to war. And none of the wars happened.
  His public declarations and policy judgment are consistently partisan 
and consistently wrong. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 
serves as the Defense Secretary's top national security advisor. It 
requires a leader with sound judgment and even temperament, and Colin 
Kahl simply doesn't possess either one of these qualities.
  Even worse, Dr. Kahl has a long track record of maligning people whom 
he disagrees with. I mentioned the Syrian example earlier. He also said 
that the Republican Party has a ``death cult fealty'' to Trump. That is 
seriously what he said.
  The bare minimum for the Defense Department's top policy position is 
good judgment and even temperament. Dr. Kahl lacks both of these 
qualifications. It would set a terrible precedent if we confirm someone 
like him for the job.
  I have a history of working so well with people on both sides, which 
is why I can and have supported many nominees whose policy views differ 
from mine. That goes with the job.
  We have someone who is elected President of the United States. I 
disagree with him on many of the issues having to do with our defense 
policy, but because I trust that while we may disagree, they understand 
that we are all trying to do the right thing for our Nation and for our 
kids and our grandkids. Unfortunately, I don't have that trust in Dr. 
Kahl. Confirming him would create a real political challenge for the 
Department over the years to come.
  Every time DOD lays down a new policy or makes a critical military 
decision, we will have to wonder: Was this the decision informed by the 
Department's skilled professionals or by the partisan conspiracy 
theorist that happens to run the Department? That is why all 13 
Republicans on the Armed Services Committee voted to reject this 
nominee. This is why I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to 
discharge and urge President Biden to consider another nominee--one who 
can work productively with both sides of the aisle, even when we 
disagree. Mr. President, I would like to have you consider these things 
to make your job and my job a lot easier.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. 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. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with my friend and colleague Senator Scott from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1105

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I am honored to be on the Senate floor 
with my colleague Senator Scott from the great State of Florida. We are 
here to talk about an issue that really matters to both Alaska and to 
Florida and, I would say, that actually matters to the whole country.
  Let me begin by saying that, like all States, my State, the great 
State of Alaska, struggled through the pandemic. There were a lot of 
challenges. I am proud to say that, with regard to the health 
challenges of the pandemic, I am very honored and privileged and proud 
to represent a great group of Americans, my fellow Alaskans, who came 
together on the health side despite our huge challenges in terms of its 
being a giant State with a dispersed population.
  We worked together, and on so many indicators of health that were 
directly related to the pandemic, Alaskans did very well. We were the 
No. 1 per capita in terms of testing throughout almost the entire 
pandemic. Remarkably, we have been the No. 1 State per capita in terms 
of vaccine distribution, which is a mini miracle, if you know Alaska, 
given how big it is. We had vaccines going out of snow machines, dog 
sleds--you name it. We were getting it out to everybody in a more 
efficient way than in any other State in the country and, importantly, 
thank God, with one of the lowest per capita death rates in the 
country. We are proud of that.
  Yet our economy--like many but I would say almost uniquely--is 
getting hammered, and people are suffering economically, first by the 
pandemic, of course, and now, unfortunately, by our own Federal 
Government. Let me just give a couple of examples.
  The energy sector is very important to Alaska and very important to 
America, and, yes, we still need energy. Oil and gas, we need them. We 
have some of the greatest workers in the world in my State, but the 
Biden administration thinks we don't need them. It has been crushing my 
State with nine Executive orders directed solely at the State of Alaska 
to shut us down--nine by this administration. There is no State in the 
country that is getting that kind of attention. We don't want that 
attention.
  Regarding commercial fishing, our State has been what I like to call 
the superpower of seafood. Over 60 percent of all seafood harvested in 
America comes from Alaska. This has been hurt by the pandemic.
  The issue that we are here to talk about today is tourism, which is 
so important to Alaska and so important to Florida, and it is what I 
want to talk about with my good friend Senator Scott. It is about 
bringing relief to our fellow Americans--Floridians, Alaskans--and 
working to immediately pass the CRUISE Act. That is our bill, which 
would provide relief to coastal communities in our country--in Alaska 
and in Florida--and would enable a responsible return of cruise ship 
activities, which are so important to the small business owners in our 
States, whose livelihoods depend on having a robust tourism sector.
  Let me just very quickly mention one thing. Alaska is open for 
tourism--one of the most beautiful places in the world. In fact, 
America, if you want to come and have a great vacation, come on up to 
Alaska this summer. Not only will you have an amazing experience, but 
we just announced 2 days ago that you can get a vaccine. Come on up. If 
your State is too inefficient for you to get a vaccine, have a great 
vacation in Alaska, and you will get a vaccine in Alaska as well. You 
can do both. You can see the most beautiful State in the country. You 
can fish, see glaciers, wildlife, climb mountains, whale watch. If you 
do that, it is going to help our economy and help the small 
businesses--fishing guides, hotels. I know Americans want to help one 
another. That is what we have been doing for the last year. We want you 
to come up, stay safe, and get a vaccine.
  But here is what we need. To enable that to happen in Alaska and in 
other parts of the country, we need the CDC to better understand its 
job, its mission, and its role. This particularly relates to the issues 
of cruise ship passengers and the ability for cruise ship vessels to 
start to return to America's waters as they are doing throughout the 
rest of the world. In Asia, Europe, and Latin America, people are 
cruising safely right now, but the CDC is dragging its feet. It is 
dithering.

[[Page S2109]]

  I have been meeting and my staff has been meeting with them, 
certainly, weekly. I have met twice with the CDC's Executive Director, 
but all we get is foot-dragging. All we get are excuses. All we get is 
guidance that is muddled, confusing, and simply unworkable.
  Here is the thing: In my State, communities are dying, and no one 
seems to care. At the CDC, the bureaucrats there don't seem to give a 
damn about what Americans are suffering through right now, literally. I 
don't know how many times we can be on calls with them wherein we get 
no response. When people lose jobs and lose businesses, that has a 
health impact too.
  Here is what our simple bill does, the CRUISE Act.
  First, it will require the CDC to issue recommendations for how to 
mitigate the risks of COVID-19 to passengers and crew on board ships. 
This will be in addition to what the industry has already put forward, 
and there are over 70 recommendations.
  Second, our bill will establish an interagency working group that 
will develop recommendations to facilitate the resumption of passenger 
cruise ship operations in the United States--in Florida and Alaska. The 
recommendations will facilitate the resumption of passenger cruise ship 
operations no later than July 4, 2021. Our bill will require the CDC, 
on no later than that same day, Independence Day, to revoke the order 
entitled ``Framework for Conditional Sailing and Initial Phase COVID-19 
Testing Requirements for Protection of Crew.''
  Our bill, finally, ensures that the HHS and CDC retain all 
appropriate authorities to make and enforce the regulations necessary 
to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable 
diseases on individual cruise ships.
  This is a commonsense bill. We need the CDC to continue to work with 
us, certainly, but to recognize that by dragging its feet, tens of 
thousands of Americans are going to continue to suffer when they don't 
have to.
  We can do this responsibly. My State and the State of Florida want to 
do this responsibly, but we can't wait any longer. Our tourism season 
in Alaska is very short. Our businesses need to know that they can open 
again, and our citizens need help.
  I yield the floor to my colleague from Florida, whose citizens are 
experiencing some of the same devastating impacts that my fellow 
Alaskans are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, I do want to compliment my 
colleague. He comes from a beautiful State. While I would like all of 
the tourists to come to Florida, Alaska is a great State to take a 
vacation. I have had the opportunity to do that a few times, and it is 
a beautiful State.
  I thank my colleagues Senator Sullivan and Senator Rubio for working 
on this bill that is so important to all of our States but, for sure, 
Florida and Alaska.
  Many States rely on the success of our ports, our cruise lines, and 
our maritime industries. Throughout my time as the Governor of Florida, 
we proudly welcomed more than 100 million visitors every year and 
shattered annual tourism records each year. Every visitor to our State 
supports small businesses, fuels job growth, and boosts tax revenue, 
helping to create State and local investments in the environment, 
transportation, public safety, and education.
  And it is not just Florida and Alaska. Tourism, including our all-
important cruise industry, has huge impacts for States across our 
Nation and the thousands of jobs that rely on its success.
  On the chart you can look at this.
  So, first off, the cruise industry shutdown is just killing a lot of 
jobs--jobs all across this country. Before the COVID-19, we had 450,000 
jobs--450,000 American jobs--and $55 billion in GDP every year in our 
economy.
  Unfortunately, due to the suspension of cruises caused by the CDC 
inaction, more than 300,000 American jobs have been lost. So this is 
all across our country.
  As we continue to work to recover from the coronavirus and get our 
economy back on track, I remain committed to doing everything I can to 
support our tourism industry in Florida, Alaska, and all across the 
country in a safe manner.
  Unfortunately, while many sectors of the economy have been safely 
operating for months under CDC guidelines, Floridians and those across 
the Nation who rely on the cruise industry for work, continue to wait, 
wait, wait, wait for updated guidance from the CDC.
  For months, I have heard from small business owners who have shared 
just all their stories about how important tourism is to them and, 
specifically, that the cruise industry is to their livelihood and how 
much the CDC's decision here has hurt them.
  Let me give you an example. Omar Otero, founder and owner of VOK 
Protective Services, says:

       As a business owner, I've been dependent on the cruise 
     industry for my livelihood for 20 years, and this pause has 
     been devastating. What many people don't see behind the 
     scenes is that cruising has a significant impact on many 
     small businesses, and employs hundreds of thousands of people 
     in America. Resuming cruising is critical to my business and 
     would allow me to work again and support my family.

  Jeannette Pineiro, president of Cruiseport Destinations, says:

       The uncertainty we've been living with the last year is 
     probably the most devastating mentally for a business owner. 
     I have former employees that are still unemployed. They want 
     to get back to work, and there has been nothing I could do. 
     The cruise industry needs to be treated on par with other 
     sectors of the travel industry, and this legislation would 
     provide a plan to safely resume cruise operations.

  The CDC's refusal to properly address this shutdown is wrong. It is 
time to get the cruise lines open, and it is going to create jobs all 
across the country.
  That is why I am proud to join my colleagues Senator Sullivan and 
Senator Rubio in introducing the CRUISE Act, which says we are not 
waiting on the CDC any longer.
  In March, President Biden announced the effort to vaccinate all 
Americans--his plan to vaccinate all Americans by July 4.
  As of this week, all adults will be eligible for COVID-19 vaccines. 
Our Nation has made enormous progress in fighting COVID-19. Yet the CDC 
has continued to act like we are still in March 2020. Meanwhile, as my 
colleague from Alaska said, there is cruising all over the rest of the 
world.
  My colleagues and I are simply asking the CDC to provide a timeline 
of when the cruise industry can begin to reopen, like so many other 
sectors, and the CRUISE Act ensures they can do that in a safe manner.
  The CDC is treating the cruise sector unfairly, while other 
industries are open for business. There is no reason why America's 
cruise industry and the thousands of jobs that rely on its success 
should continue to suffer.
  Cruises can and should resume, and we are going to do everything we 
can to bring back cruising safely.
  I yield to my colleague from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 1105 and the 
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. 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 Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I 
understand the position of my colleagues from Alaska and Florida who 
want to see a return to cruising by July 4. I am there with them. The 
cruise industry in my home State supports over 5,500 jobs and creates 
$900 million in annual local business revenue. Those jobs and that 
impact on the local economy have been severely disrupted, but we have 
to ensure the safety of our friends and our families on these cruises 
before they disembark.
  We have seen firsthand how devastating COVID outbreaks on cruise 
ships can be. Just last year, we saw thousands of passengers stranded 
on cruise ships--people put in quarantine or refused entry to ports as 
borders closed.
  Over 31 million Americans have contracted COVID, and 560,000 have 
died

[[Page S2110]]

from this disease. Cruise ships require specific focus and protocols in 
place to prevent future outbreaks.
  While I am as eager as anyone else to see a return to travel, we 
cannot cut corners. Doing so risks lives and will only further delay 
returning to normal, hurting our economy more in the long run.
  We must trust the science, and we must allow the CDC to continue its 
work to help us return to what we love as safely as possible.
  So I will continue to work with the CDC and the administration as 
they develop the next phase of their cruising guidance, but for now, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The junior Senator from Alaska
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, to my colleague from Washington, whom 
I have the utmost respect for, it is true that at the beginning of the 
pandemic, there were all kinds of challenges with the cruise ship 
industry. There is no doubt about that. We saw that, but that was 
over--well over--a year ago. We didn't know anything about the virus 
then, we didn't have vaccines then, and we didn't see the economic 
devastation then. It is a very different period right now, a year 
later.
  What we are asking for is the CDC to move. That is what our bill 
does.
  You know, Senator Murkowski and I had a meeting--our second meeting--
with the CDC Director just 3 weeks ago, and in that meeting she told us 
that they were going to issue all the guidance for the cruise ships--
issue it all so people can plan. They said that they could anticipate 
with this guidance that we could meet cruising opportunities to start 
by mid-July in Alaska. They said that with this guidance the CDC 
wouldn't have to be approving every move--every move going forward--and 
they said that they would take into consideration this huge progress we 
have made on vaccinating Americans.
  In my State, in southeast Alaska, there are communities with 60, 70, 
80 percent vaccination rates. That is where these cruise ships are 
going to be going.
  The unfortunate thing is that not one thing the Director of the CDC 
told us turned out to be true. That is not good. Her staff or somebody 
in the CDC needs to be held responsible for telling us something that 
was not true at all.
  Again, what is happening right now is an economic and health 
devastation. In my State, the estimates are up to $3 billion worth of 
damage just in Alaska alone because of the foot-dragging, mixed 
messages, and unresponsiveness when it comes to the CDC's guidance.
  As my friend from Florida just mentioned, airlines, schools, 
hospitals, and hotels have all gotten CDC guidance and have been able 
to open. But for some reason, they are focused on this industry, which 
negatively impacts thousands of small businesses across America, in 
Florida and Alaska. And I certainly hope that the CDC, seeing that we 
are trying to move this--and it is a bipartisan issue, by the way--will 
start to do its job--will start to do its job and make the commitment 
that was made to me and other Senators to get this moving quickly in 
terms of guidance so we can be having tourism, cruise ships, and 
otherwise in America by mid-July. That is what I was told by the 
Director 3 weeks ago. They need to keep that commitment.
  I yield to my good friend from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, well, I am clearly 
disappointed that my colleague from Washington would object to this 
commonsense proposal.
  The cruise industry impacts thousands of jobs, not just in Florida 
and not just in Alaska but in the State of Washington. Everybody here I 
know wants to make sure that we can start cruising again in a safe 
manner.
  Let's remember what my colleague was talking about. She was talking 
about what was going on in March and April in 2020. But today, hotels 
are open, airlines are flying, beaches are open, restaurants are open, 
tourism sites are open, and amusement parks are open. They are all 
open, but for whatever reason, the CDC has made the decision to not 
allow cruising to happen, and they have singled out this industry and 
cannot tell any of us why they singled this out.
  All we are asking is for the CDC to provide a timeline of when the 
cruise industry can begin to reopen. The cruise industry wants to do it 
safely. It is a lot of American jobs, including--I think it is--23,000 
jobs and a billion dollars in economic impact in the State of 
Washington.
  So I know everybody says they want to get this done, but the only way 
this is going to happen is if we make sure that we force the CDC to 
finally make a decision and allow the cruise industry to get open again 
in a safe manner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                    Nomination of Colin Hackett Kahl

  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, Colin Kahl is President Biden's nominee 
to be the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. This is the top 
strategic planning position at the Department of Defense--the No. 3 
position at our Department of Defense. The role is critically important 
to the national security of our country and the safety of our allies 
around the world.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Kahl is temperamentally and professionally unfit 
to hold this--or, for that matter, virtually any other--job at the 
Pentagon. He is impulsive, intemperate, offensive, and has consistently 
demonstrated terrible judgment.
  For the past several years, Mr. Kahl has endeavored, for some 
inexplicable reason, to be something of a Twitter celebrity--not 
exactly aiming his sights high. In pursuit of this goal, he has 
personally attacked the character and reputation of virtually every 
Republican Senator, as well, I would say, with lots of Democratic 
Senators.
  He has tweeted that Members of both parties who supported the 
withdrawal from the terrible Iran nuclear deal ``won't be satisfied 
until they get the war they pushed for decades.''
  He wrote that 45 Senators who supported weapon sales to Saudi Arabia 
share ``ownership of the world's worst humanitarian crisis.'' This 
claim, in which he referred to the war in Yemen, of course, ignores the 
role of Iran's murderous, terrorist proxies, something, of course, that 
Colin Kahl repeatedly turns a blind eye to everywhere in the world--
Iran's evil malignancy.
  On a separate occasion, Mr. Kahl said that every Republican who 
supported an end to combat operations in Syria ``debased themselves at 
the altar of Trump.'' He then added that the party of Lincoln is ``the 
party of ethnic cleansing.'' Let's let that sink in for a moment.
  Joe Biden has nominated a man to be the No. 3 official at our 
Department of Defense who has accused one of the two main political 
parties in our country as being ``the party of ethnic cleansing.'' It 
is hard to imagine an uglier or more vicious accusation than that.
  Perhaps Mr. Kahl could ask Bill Clinton and Susan Rice, on whose 
watch the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda happened.
  When John Bolton was about to become the National Security Advisor, 
Mr. Kahl, quite reasonably, stated on social media: ``We are going to 
die.''
  To my knowledge, we are not dead, and Mr. Kahl is very much alive, 
despite John Bolton being appointed as a staffer in the U.S. 
Government. He also claimed that the Republican Party had a ``death 
cult fealty'' to former President Trump. These statements and many more 
make it difficult to conceive of a circumstance in which this nominee 
could successfully forge a productive relationship with Members of the 
Republican Party in the Senate or the House or anywhere else, for that 
matter.

  Mr. Kahl's ranting and raving on social media in 2017 may have even 
gone from offensive to criminal on several occasions. It appears that 
several of Mr. Kahl's tweets divulge or confirm classified and 
sensitive information. I recently joined 17 of my fellow Senators in 
requesting a full FBI investigation into this very serious and 
troubling matter. No vote should occur until that important inquiry 
takes place.
  Now, the nominee's transgressions on social media are somewhat 
reminiscent of Neera Tanden's foolish statements on that social media 
platform. I think this Chamber set a reasonable standard when it 
rightfully rejected her nomination, and we ought to maintain that 
standard with this nominee.

[[Page S2111]]

  In many ways, though, Mr. Kahl's behavior is worse than Ms. Tanden's 
because his poisonous partisanship, his narrow-sightedness, and his 
short temper will directly affect his job. He is up for a post that is 
less partisan and more cooperative in nature than was Ms. Tanden's. His 
position will require him to be under extreme stress, where he will 
need to listen to a full range of options, engage in careful 
deliberation, and regularly make life-and-death decisions. I have to 
say, his auditions as a social media celebrity over the last 5 years 
don't inspire confidence in his ability to do so.
  When I asked him about this at his hearing, he said he may have 
gotten caught up in the passions of the moment or that these were 
stressful, trying times. Some of these social media statements, I would 
point out, came in the middle of the night when Mr. Kahl was presumably 
sitting on his couch at home watching his news feed. If he thinks that 
is a stressful or trying moment, what is he going to do when he is 
sitting in the Pentagon and Vladimir Putin is invading southern 
Ukraine?
  Talking about foreign policy decisions, I would point out that Mr. 
Kahl has been like Joe Biden--wrong about nearly every important 
foreign policy decision over the last decade. In 2010, Mr. Kahl said 
that concerns about a rapid withdrawal from Iraq were ``exaggerated'' 
and it was ``very unlikely to trigger a dramatic uptick in violence.'' 
He missed that one by just a little bit because soon thereafter, 30,000 
radical Islamic extremists conquered a quarter of Iraq, and ISIS 
carried out horrific terrorist attacks on multiple continents.
  In 2012, he ridiculed then-Candidate Mitt Romney's, now-Senator Mitt 
Romney's assertion that Russia was a major geopolitical threat. Of 
course, 2 years later, Russia invaded Ukraine and conquered Crimea. It 
has since been an obsession of the Democratic Party, even though Joe 
Biden has once again reverted to the Democrats' traditional dovishness 
on Russia, something presumably Mr. Kahl would support.
  In 2017, he predicted that recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of 
Israel, where the seat of Israel's Government is located, would result 
in a ``third Intifada.'' Instead, Israel has signed multiple historic 
peace deals.
  In 2018, when President Trump warned Iran against pursuing nuclear 
weapons, Mr. Kahl wrote the ``war drums are already sounding.'' But no 
war happened.
  That same year, when President Trump withdrew from the terrible Iran 
nuclear deal, Mr. Kahl said: ``War will be all that is left.'' No war 
happened.
  In 2020, when the United States finally delivered justice by killing 
Iran's terrorist mastermind Qasam Soleimani, Mr. Kahl said Mr. Trump 
had ``started a war with Iran in Iraq.'' Yet again, no war happened.
  Mr. Kahl's inability to accurately assess these events almost defies 
probability. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
  On issues of war and peace, Mr. Kahl is reliably unreliable and 
consistently wrong. This is not a fault that one of the chief strategic 
planners, the No. 3 official at the Pentagon, and one of the most 
powerful policy advisers in the government ought to have. No Pentagon 
nominee should be this partisan, this divisive, and this controversial.
  Republicans have given every Defense Department and intelligence 
nominee a fair hearing, and most have passed this Chamber with healthy 
bipartisan majorities and in some cases unanimously. Mr. Kahl is 
different. Mr. Kahl is different because his toxic statements and 
reputation would inhibit the workings of the Department of Defense.
  Every time, as Secretary Austin and senior Pentagon personnel testify 
before the Senate, Members of this body will wonder if the policies 
they are presented with are the product of hard-headed serious planning 
or the workings of a political hack.
  A man of Mr. Kahl's judgment and temperament and his record of 
disastrous policy judgments is unfit to be the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy, and I will oppose his nomination, as every Senator 
should.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, you know, the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy serves as the national security advisor to the 
Secretary of Defense. This position requires even temperament, sound 
judgment, and a willingness to work with both sides of the aisle to 
protect and advance our national security.
  As many of my colleagues have noted, President Biden's nominee for 
this important position severely lacks these qualities.
  Colin Kahl has promoted conspiracy theories on social media. He makes 
outrageous claims against those who disagree with him, like when he 
called Republicans ``the party of ethnic cleansing.'' And he views the 
threats of our Nation solely through the lens of partisan politics.
  Dr. Kahl blatantly downplayed the threat of Russia when our colleague 
Mitt Romney highlighted it during the 2012 Presidential campaign but 
then promoted numerous lies about President Trump and Russia after the 
2016 election. This is not--and I repeat--not the kind of person who 
should serve in the Pentagon's No. 3 position.
  But today I want to address another issue. Dr. Kahl presents himself 
as an academic, but he often makes claims that are not grounded in 
data. That is especially true when it comes to the situation along our 
southern border.
  As everybody knows, the illegal migration crisis is not new. As of 
2017, according to the Pew Research Center, there were an estimated 
10.5 million unauthorized immigrants in this country. And according to 
Pew, over 77 percent of those unauthorized immigrants came from within 
the Western Hemisphere. President Trump came into office in 2017 
promising to do something about this challenge: enforce our immigration 
laws and reinforce southern security along our border. Dr. Kahl 
disagreed with his policy, and that is certainly his right, but rather 
than explain why he disagreed, he promoted baseless lies.
  In October 2018, a migrant caravan surged toward our southwestern 
border. President Trump deployed approximately 5,000 U.S. members of 
our service to support the Department of Homeland Security at the 
border. This was not, as some in the media claimed, a ``show of 
force.'' This was the defense support to civil authority's mission, the 
type of mission that the DOD also does to support FEMA during 
hurricanes.
  Dr. Kahl has served previously at the Pentagon. He has served as 
National Security Advisor to the Vice President. He knows what defense 
support to civil authority is and what these missions entail. But 
rather than explain any of this to his many thousands of Twitter 
followers, Dr. Kahl told them that the deployment was a ``stunt.'' This 
was a terrible insult to the men and women in uniform who were 
supporting DHS at the time. But more to the point, it was also a 
blatant lie.
  A few months later, Dr. Kahl called the situation at the border a 
``fake crisis'' and also tweeted that ``Trump's claims of a border 
crisis are bogus.''
  To justify his claims, Kahl cited data showing a decrease in arrests 
at the southern border. But there was one problem with his data: 
arrests along the border always decline when border enforcement is lax.
  Well, as we know, President Trump stepped up enforcement at the 
border, and it worked. As a result, arrests at the border surged 
through the first half of 2019. More border security means more 
arrests, but it also deters future illegal migrants, and that is why 
illegal border crossings fell dramatically in the second half of 2019.
  Far from being a ``fake crisis,'' as Dr. Kahl would have it, this was 
a crisis that was not being properly addressed until President Trump 
took action. Today, we have another crisis at the border. We have seen 
a record number of illegal crossings and arrests in recent months as 
illegal migrants anticipate a more welcoming environment under 
President Biden's administration.
  The Biden administration has made detrimental changes to our border 
policy, including ending the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy. But it is 
worth noting what has not changed: U.S. troops are still deployed in 
support of DHS along the border. They are still there. Anyone who has 
taken the time to visit our southern border, as I was there just a few 
weeks ago, understands that if our

[[Page S2112]]

troops were not in this region, the crisis at the border would only 
grow worse.
  Colin Kahl saw the deployment as a ``stunt'' under President Trump. I 
suspect he sees it a little differently under President Biden. And that 
is exactly the problem: Colin Kahl's judgment is often based on 
partisan politics, not data.
  We cannot accept the risk of having someone so partisan in the 
Defense Department's No. 3 position. This position requires someone who 
bases his recommendations on data and not on the top trending hashtag. 
I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to discharge.
  Let Colin Kahl keep tweeting and let the administration send us 
another nominee.
  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. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Tribute to Chris Maier

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of Oregonians in 
every nook and cranny of our wonderful State, to thank my friend Chris 
Maier for more than three decades of stellar public service.
  Chris is retiring this month as a superhero who has been cutting 
through redtape and defeating bureaucracy for so many Oregonians who 
turned to her nights and weekends and all hours. She helped with 
emergency immigration and State Department needs, passports, visas, 
immigration questions, and so much more.
  As a casework manager and constituent services representative in my 
office for more than a decade, Chris brought an unfailing 
professionalism, determined follow-through, and ``Oregon Way'' focus on 
smart solutions when tackling all of those duties.
  Chris came to our Portland office in 2009, after a decade of working 
for my friend Senator Gordon Smith. Before that, she had worked a total 
of 11 years in the offices of Senator Mark Hatfield, Congressman Denny 
Smith, and State Representative Chuck Carpenter. If those names that I 
just mentioned were an answer on jeopardy, the question would be: Who 
are four prominent elected Republicans in Oregon history?
  The Senate heard that one right. Chris is retiring after a career of 
working for elected officials from both political parties. On one 
level, she worked for all of us as elected officials, but on a larger 
level, she worked for everybody in Oregon, regardless of their 
politics. And on that larger level, Chris epitomizes so many other 
public servants in Oregon and our country whose names just never get 
celebrated in headlines or tweets or news coverage.
  The word ``bipartisan'' gets tossed around a lot, but Chris lived 
that ethos every single day of her public service career. When she was 
responding to the uncounted number of calls and email inquiries she got 
over the years, she never said: So tell me a little bit about your 
politics. Her response was always: How can I help? And she always 
applied her common sense and the deep reservoir of good will she earned 
nationwide to move the levers of government quickly and successfully. 
And as I alluded to at the outset, those queries and her responses 
never corresponded to an 8-to-5 schedule because she was always on the 
phone to a U.S. Embassy somewhere thousands of miles away.
  Chris's duties went into overdrive in the first few weeks this past 
year during COVID. Oregon parents called Chris frantic to get their 
kids home from overseas study programs. Oregon families and friends 
would email Chris desperate for information about family members abroad 
on travel that they had saved a lifetime for. And we had businesses 
from all over Oregon text Chris about their U.S. employees who were 
working in other countries.
  On the other end of all of those calls, emails, and texts was Chris 
Maier, always responding with her experience and empathy to figure out 
solutions. I can't even begin to calculate the number of times 
Oregonians would come up to me in our iconic ``Fred Meyer'' stories, 
and they would say: Ron, let me tell you about how Chris Maier went to 
bat for me and my family.
  So today we are very grateful for her ``Chris Maier'' brand of 
tenacity with a smile, because she was steering so many Oregonians 
through the unprecedented trials of the past year.
  I have been thinking about all the challenges she has been helping 
Oregonians with over her entire career, and she was helping all those 
people when she was in our office every single day, bringing relentless 
good cheer, an overflowing candy bowl, and a love bordering on 
obsession for University of Oregon football. We Ducks take our football 
seriously, but certainly nobody more than Chris Maier.
  I am going to close with a final thought as I send Chris off to a 
very well-earned retirement with her husband Brad and their daughter 
Katherine, back home on the east side of my hometown, Portland. As 
Chris's fellow Oregon football fans know, the pregame pageantry at home 
games in Eugene always included the tradition of one joyful shout in 
unison: ``It never rains in Autzen Stadium.''
  If I may paraphrase that thought today in talking about my friend. 
Her optimistic outlook and legacy of success means that all of us are 
joyful because ``It never rains in Chris Maier's world.''
  So, Chris, on behalf of Oregonians and communities small and large, 
we are so grateful for all the time you went to bat for the people of 
our State and for the people of this country. For that we say thank 
you.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.


                           FIGHT Fentanyl Act

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to call on my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to join Senator Portman and myself--and Senator 
Portman will come in later and express his desire for this also--in 
taking action to permanently schedule fentanyl and deadly fentanyl 
analogs.
  Fentanyl is 100 times more potent than morphine, 50 times more potent 
than heroin, and according to the DEA, 2 milligrams--just 2 
milligrams--of fentanyl can cause a lethal overdose.
  In February 2018, the Drug Enforcement Administration issued a 
temporary scheduling order to schedule fentanyl-related substances, 
which has allowed Federal law enforcement authorities to bring criminal 
actions against individuals who manufacture, distribute, or handle 
fentanyl-related substances.
  A year ago, this body extended the scheduling order through May 6, 
2021, via unanimous consent. The House extended it by a vote of 320 to 
88. This should not be controversial at all.
  In 2019, 36,359 people died because of fentanyl. That is 51 percent 
of all overdose deaths that year--51 percent. Over half of the people 
who were killed by overdose were by fentanyl. We know 2020 was a record 
year in drug overdoses, mainly driven by fentanyl-related substances 
and the COVID-19 pandemic. We can safely assume that there were at 
least 44,000 deaths last year--think about that--44,000 deaths related 
to fentanyl last year. In total, that is over 80,000 people who have 
died because of fentanyl in just the last 2 years. It is heartbreaking 
to lose so many Americans to preventable overdoses.
  The time to permanently schedule this deadly substance is now. That 
is why Senator Portman and I reintroduced the bipartisan FIGHT Fentanyl 
Act to permanently schedule fentanyl and fentanyl analogs. I am saying 
permanently schedule fentanyl and fentanyl analogs.
  The FIGHT Fentanyl Act is a proactive overdose prevention bill. It 
stops the creation of these drugs and removes incentives for people to 
bring these deadly chemicals into our country, reducing the harm to our 
fellow Americans.
  We know that fentanyl is deadly. It is killing Americans at record 
rates. West Virginia, my home State, has the highest overdose rates per 
capita in the Nation, and every West Virginian is familiar with the 
horrible impacts of the

[[Page S2113]]

drug epidemic on our family, friends, neighbors, and our entire 
economy.
  I recognize there are concerns about mandatory minimums that do more 
harm than good. But permanently scheduling fentanyl and fentanyl 
analogs is not about locking people up; it is about keeping our fellow 
Americans alive.
  Don't take my word for it. We asked the GAO to study it--the General 
Accounting Office to study it. In the last 3 years since the 
rescheduling was put in place, the GAO found only eight prosecutions 
occurred related to fentanyl analogs, four of which were associated 
with drug cartels. If that is not enough, our bill also explicitly 
prohibits new mandatory minimums associated with fentanyl analogs.
  Here are the facts: 80,000 deaths compared to 8 prosecutions--80,000 
deaths compared to 8 prosecutions.
  Here is another fact: We simply don't have the support in Congress 
today to pass the FIGHT Fentanyl Act right now. It is hard to believe. 
We must pass another short-term extension this week to ensure the 
essential temporary protection does not lapse. I hope my colleagues 
will at least support that effort.
  I also urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to join Senator 
Portman and me in this effort to permanently reschedule this deadly, 
deadly drug. We cannot afford to keep kicking the can down the road as 
we have for far too long.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  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. PORTMAN. 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. PORTMAN. Madam President, my friend and colleague Senator Manchin 
from West Virginia and I are on the floor today to talk about this 
issue of fentanyl.
  This is a deadly synthetic opioid that is killing more people in our 
States than any other single drug. Unbelievably, Congress has only 15 
days to act, and if we don't, some of these illegal fentanyl products 
are going to be legal again. This is exactly the wrong thing for us to 
do right now as, sadly, we are seeing a big increase in overdoses and 
overdose deaths because of the effects of the coronavirus pandemic.
  We want to have bipartisan legislation that we have introduced, 
passed, that simply says: Let's not allow these illicitly manufactured 
and deadly synthetic opioids to suddenly become legal again.
  If we don't act within 15 days, that will happen. Our bill would 
ensure that these deadly drugs continued to be scheduled--that is the 
technical term--scheduled by the Drug Enforcement Agency, meaning they 
would continue to be illegal.
  Here is why we have to act. Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid, is more 
than 15 times more powerful than heroin, and it is incredibly 
addictive. For years, this has been coming to our shores from China, 
almost all of it through the mail until recently because we, frankly, 
passed legislation to cut down on mail deliveries, and instead, now 
much is coming through Mexico, across our southwest border.
  It is a big reason overdose deaths in the United States surged to 
record highs during this COVID-19 pandemic, with more than 87,000 
Americans--think about that--87,000 Americans died during the 12-month 
period between September 2019 and September 2020. That is a record. It 
is a terrible record.
  When we have the actual numbers from 2020, it is going to be even 
worse. We just got these numbers from September 2019 until September 
2020. When we have the numbers from January 2020 through December 2020, 
it will be even worse. That is what everybody says, and it makes sense. 
When you look at this data, the worst months are the months during the 
pandemic in 2020.

  Again, we are very sadly, after several years of progress, looking at 
once again an increase in these overdose deaths. According to the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, synthetic opioids like 
fentanyl are the biggest drivers of this tragic surge. We can project 
that more than half of these deaths are from this class of drug based 
on what we know from the 2019 data. That is the latest information we 
have. In 2019, there were 70,630 deaths, and more than half of those--
36,359--involved fentanyl. Experts believe that fentanyl, sometimes 
mixed with other drugs like cocaine or crystal meth or sometimes 
heroin, continues to be the No. 1 killer.
  It is such an enormous crisis because these drugs are so incredibly 
dangerous. It takes only 2 milligrams of fentanyl to kill an adult, 
which is why the DEA, Drug Enforcement Administration, permanently 
classified fentanyl as a schedule II drug.
  In order to avoid prosecution, drug traffickers started making slight 
modifications to fentanyl. You have some evil scientist in China or in 
Mexico who makes a slight modification to fentanyl, sometimes adjusting 
a single molecule and creating what are called fentanyl analogs. In 
other words, it is not precisely pure fentanyl, and so unfortunately, 
although it has the same narcotic properties as fentanyl, these tiny 
variations allow these traffickers and these scientists to evade 
prosecution. Oftentimes, by the way, these analogs, like carfentanil, 
are even more deadly, believe it or not, than fentanyl itself.
  In response, in 2018, the DEA temporarily scheduled fentanyl analogs, 
but under law, that designation expires after May 6--again, only 15 
days from now. If that deadline lapses, evil scientists and criminals 
who run labs in China and Mexico will be able to avoid law enforcement 
as they flood the United States with unlimited slight variations of 
this deadly drug.
  That is why Senator Manchin and I are calling on Congress to do the 
sensible thing: Pass the FIGHT Fentanyl Act to make these dangerous 
substances permanently illegal. That is what law enforcement wants, 
that is what our communities demand, and that is what we deserve to 
give them. It is long overdue that we make this designation permanent.
  China, by the way, implemented classwide controls over fentanyl 
analogs in 2019. China's law defines fentanyl-related substances more 
broadly than the U.S. Government defines fentanyl-related substances. 
How ironic. Here is China, a country sending us this poison and 
actually making these drugs illegal in China, and they are not illegal 
here. How could that be?
  I know some colleagues oppose permanent scheduling of these fentanyl 
drugs because they are concerned about mandatory minimum sentences and 
also that it could hinder research into future medications to treat 
addiction. Let me address both of those.
  First, I share this concern about the harsh punishments that don't 
fit the nature of the crime. That is why our legislation ensures that 
mandatory minimum sentences are not automatically imposed. In any 
criminal case, we want the judge to look at the severity of the crime 
and consider all relevant factors in sentencing. So that issue is 
addressed.
  There has been a great deal of conversation about the impact of 
prosecutions and incarcerations on specific populations, including 
minority communities, but what is often lost in this debate is the 
growing impact of fatal overdoses in these same communities.
  Since 2016, while White fatalities decreased through 2019--the data 
we have--overdoses from opioids among Black Americans, particularly 
Black men, have actually accelerated. From 2011 to 2016, Black 
Americans had the highest increase in synthetic opioid-involved 
overdose death rates compared to all populations. So it is getting 
worse, not better, in these same minority communities.
  While from 2017 to 2018, overall opioid-involved overdose fatalities 
decreased--remember we were making progress for the last several years. 
Overall, it decreased by just over 4 percent. Rates among Black and 
Hispanic Americans actually increased.
  Another issue my colleagues have raised, again, is concern that 
permanently scheduled fentanyl and its analogs somehow hinders research 
in treating addiction. First of all, I agree that we need this research 
and need it badly. One example of this is coming up with naloxone, a 
miracle drug based on heroin that actually reverses the effects of 
overdose. It is a miracle. I have seen it work, and it saves lives.

[[Page S2114]]

  Researchers have told me there are barriers to being approved to 
legally research schedule I substances. There is also a stigma to 
conducting this kind of research even though we know that it could lead 
to development of new treatments. I am open to working with colleagues 
to address these barriers, and I believe we can do that through 
legislation creating flexibility in the registration system for 
scientists. But we cannot let these deadly fentanyl drugs become legal 
in the meantime, and certainly we can't allow this to happen in the 
next 15 days.
  Just before we came to the floor this afternoon, the House of 
Representatives passed a temporary measure. It is a 5-month extension 
of the ability to schedule these deadly drugs. Why would we do it for 
just 5 months? Let's do it permanently.
  Now I am told: Well, we have a take-it-or-leave-it from the House. I 
hope that is not the case. If so, of course I will be for extending it 
rather than having it expire in 15 days. But let's act. Let's act 
responsibly. Let's act now.
  The U.S. Senate should be taking the lead here in saying let's 
permanently classify these drugs, as everybody agrees they should be 
classified in the sense that they are dangerous narcotics that are 
killing literally tens of thousands of our fellow citizens every year.
  Let's do the right thing for those communities. Let's do the right 
thing for law enforcement. Let's be sure they have the predictability 
and certainty in law enforcement to know that they can prosecute these 
criminals--these traffickers. We need to act now to address the threat 
of these deadly fentanyl drugs coming into our communities, and I urge 
the Senate to pass the FIGHT Fentanyl Act this week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                    Nomination of Colin Hackett Kahl

  Ms. ERNST. Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
nomination of Mr. Colin Kahl to be Under Secretary of Defense for 
Policy.
  The position of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy is essentially 
the third most senior leadership position in the Department of Defense. 
It requires a leader of tremendous experience and knowledge, someone 
with the ability to separate politics from policy. With the many 
national security challenges our Nation and the Pentagon face, this 
position requires a measured, rational, and deliberate leader. It needs 
a leader who puts the safety and security of the American people ahead 
of scoring one more point on the political board. The head of policy at 
the Pentagon needs to be someone we as a country can trust with some of 
our most delicate secrets. The reality is, Mr. Kahl does not meet the 
standard for this position.
  Secretary of Defense Austin and his Deputy, Dr. Kathleen Hicks, have 
affirmed before the Senate what the national defense strategy 
articulated: The most pressing strategic challenge facing our country 
is Communist China. We know the threat from China is long-lasting and 
very serious. The complex actions and efforts of the CCP are disrupting 
the global order and reducing our national security. These actions 
demand expertise in the development and leadership of our national 
defense.
  When it comes to President Biden's pick for the head of defense 
policy, Mr. Kahl--well, Mr. Kahl lacks any meaningful experience and 
has only a sparse record of thought on China or anything in the broader 
Indo-Pacific region, for that matter. The United States cannot afford 
this lack of knowledge and experience in a top Pentagon official.
  Now, folks, we can also look to his judgment as a matter of concern. 
Mr. Kahl has a record of leniency toward Iran--the world's leading 
state sponsor of terrorism--and belligerence to Israel.
  On Iran, I would note that this administration is already not taking 
seriously the threat Tehran poses. Iran flagrantly continues to enrich 
its uranium and inch closer and closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon. 
We, the American people, cannot afford for this administration to play 
footsie with Iran and kowtow to its demands of sanctions relief.
  Based on Kahl's record, he would be one more advocate at the table 
pushing to get the United States back into the failed Iran nuclear 
agreement. Frankly, when it comes to Iran and Israel, Mr. Kahl couldn't 
be more wrong in his understanding of who our friends are and who the 
real threats to America are.
  If I am honest, I am deeply dismayed that we are even to this point 
in consideration. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy must be a 
steadfast, measured, and discreet public official. Mr. Kahl has proven 
to be the complete opposite. He is brash and unserious in his public 
rhetoric. In fact, he has called Republicans ``the party of ethnic 
cleansing,'' and he played the role of Chicken Little in claiming ``we 
are all going to die'' if one former White House adviser were replaced 
for another. His hysterical--yes, hysterical--public comments may have 
even compromised classified information.
  That is why I have joined with many of my colleagues in calling for 
an FBI investigation of his handling of classified information. In 
having led troops overseas during Operation Iraqi Freedom--serving in 
our military for over 23 years--I believe our servicemembers deserve 
someone who will take a serious, nonpartisan outlook to policy, apply 
measured thought to his actions, and real, qualifying experience to a 
most critical job.
  Mr. Kahl is far from meeting that standard. I strongly, strongly 
oppose his nomination and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, I rise today to discuss my serious 
concerns about the judgment and the temperament of the nominee Colin 
Kahl, the controversial nominee to be the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Policy, the third highest position in our Department of Defense.
  On April 13, 2021, I, along with 17 other Senators, wrote to FBI 
Director Christopher Wray requesting an investigation into whether Kahl 
had improperly disclosed classified information. We also asked the 
majority leader not to advance Kahl's nomination to the floor until the 
FBI completes its investigation. Yet here we stand.
  The 18 Senators who signed these letters include Senators who sit on 
the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and 
the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  As Senators, the Constitution charges us with providing advice and 
consent, and so I stand here today because the Senate deserves to have 
these questions answered so that we may properly discharge our duties.
  I fear my Democratic colleagues want to force this nominee through 
before we know all the facts--facts which may be incredibly damning to 
his nomination.
  Here is what we do know. As a U.S. Government employee with a Top 
Secret security clearance, Colin Kahl signed a classified information 
nondisclosure agreement. In fact, he likely signed many of them during 
his tenure in government. This document binds government employees in 
perpetuity to protect classified information under U.S. laws, 
regulations, and Executive orders.
  These classified information nondisclosure agreements don't come with 
footnotes. They don't come with fine print that says you are only 
obligated to protect classified information when it is a President you 
like or when it is a President that belongs to the political party you 
agree with.
  Mr. Kahl signed this document to protect classified information in 
perpetuity, period. Rather than uphold the oath that he took to his 
Nation and to his government, Kahl decided to recklessly disclose 
sensitive information to secure political points on Twitter.
  Some of the information that Kahl appears to have leaked--internal 
deliberations of the National Security Council--is of a category that 
even Senators and Senate staff with the highest security clearances are 
almost always denied access.
  In December of 2017, Kahl publicly bragged that he confirmed the 
disclosure to the media of classified planning for military operations 
in North Korea with ``multiple sources inside the Administration.''
  You can see right here his tweet:

       There is a contingent at the White House that believes a 
     limited strike is viable and

[[Page S2115]]

     the US can control escalation by threatening regime change if 
     Kim Jong Un retaliates.

  This is incredible.
  Continuing on that same thread, he says:

       I've heard this separately from multiple sources inside the 
     Administration.

  In other words, if the intelligence services of North Korea, China, 
Russia, Iran, and other adversaries were working to corroborate the 
accuracy of this leaked information, Kahl saved them the trouble by 
working with ``multiple sources inside the Administration'' to confirm 
this leaked classified information, publicly, no less.
  Let me put this in a personal perspective. When Kahl tweeted these 
leaks in December of 2017, I was serving as U.S. Ambassador to Japan. 
This was at a time when North Korea had launched two intercontinental 
ballistic missiles over Japan, and they had also detonated a 
thermonuclear warhead, putting the lives of my family, my fellow 
American diplomats, and more than 50,000 Active-Duty U.S. military and 
their families--all of us living within range of North Korea--in harm's 
way
  At a time when tensions couldn't have been higher, Colin Kahl was 
willing to expose vital information to North Korea and risk American 
lives--all of this just to score political points. Reckless, I say.
  In February and March of 2017, Kahl leaked details about a classified 
National Security Council meeting on counterterrorism operations in 
Yemen that he ``confirmed with 4 separate staffers in the room.''
  Here is his message, talking about Yemen, quoting the Deputy National 
Security Advisor, K.T. McFarland, saying ``saddle up.''
  The existence of this meeting should have been classified and 
certainly anything that was said during this meeting. Here it is on 
Twitter.
  Then he follows up by saying he has ``confirmed with 4 separate 
staffers in the room.''
  In short, Kahl used social media and other forums to leak classified 
information to brag about his ability to get U.S. Government employees 
to confirm with him the veracity of leaked classified information.
  Whoever holds the third highest position at DOD must be someone who 
completely understands and appreciates the important nature of 
sensitive information and is dedicated to safeguarding it.
  Yet rather than respect the responsibility that came with his access 
to sensitive material, Kahl recklessly shared this privileged 
information on Twitter for the world to see, merely to scratch 
political, partisan itch.
  If we let this nominee slide through under these conditions, what 
message does it send to other ambitious national security types? 
Doesn't it say that leaking classified information for political 
reasons will be rewarded? Doesn't it encourage further disclosure of 
classified information? Doesn't it play right into our adversaries' 
hands by showing that our internal political divisions can be exploited 
to obtain the most sensitive information that our government keeps?
  My Senate colleagues and I explained in our letter to FBI Director 
Wray:

       The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy plays a key role 
     in matters crucial to America's national security and should 
     be held by a person of sound judgment and temperament--
     someone who understands and respects the need to safeguard 
     classified information and to keep national security affairs 
     distinct and separate from partisan political activities.''
       Kahl's growing record of apparent mishandling of classified 
     information and his evasive response regarding this issue 
     fall far short of the standards required for holding one of 
     our nation's top national security positions.
       By apparently soliciting or otherwise receiving classified 
     information from U.S. government officials serving in 
     national security roles and repeatedly posting such 
     information on social media . . . Kahl demonstrated disregard 
     for security protocols that are designed to protect our 
     national security interests.

  Kahl has shown that he is unfit to serve and his nomination should 
not move forward until the FBI has completed the investigation 
requested by me and 17 of my Senate colleagues.
  I hope that all of my colleagues want to see answers to these 
important questions, as well, before we begin to advance his 
nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  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. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Vote on Motion

  Mr. REED. Madam President, I would yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to discharge.
  Mr. REED. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 161 Ex.]

                                YEAS--50

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young
  (Mr. HICKENLOOPER assumed the Chair.)
  The VICE PRESIDENT. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 50. 
The Senate, being equally divided, the Vice President votes in the 
affirmative, and the motion is agreed to.
  Pursuant to S. Res. 27 and the motion to discharge having been agreed 
to, the nomination will be placed on the Executive Calendar.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). The Senator from Ohio.


                             Infrastructure

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I welcome the Vice President, the 
President of the Senate, to our Chamber this evening.
  I am here this evening to discuss the infrastructure plan that has 
been proposed by President Biden and the plan along with it for massive 
tax increases.
  The Biden infrastructure plan totals a massive $2.3 trillion, but 
only about 20 percent of it actually goes towards funding anything that 
Members of either party have ever considered infrastructure. I support 
more infrastructure investment, as do, I believe, most if not all of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  The question is, What is infrastructure, and how do you pay for it? 
Roads and bridges, as an example in this proposal, are only about 5 
percent of the plan. In fact, it provides more money for long-term care 
than it does for roads and bridges, more money for electric cars than 
it does for roads and bridges, and more money for schools and daycare 
than it does for roads and bridges. Many of these noninfrastructure 
ideas are worthy ones, and they should be debated and they should be 
considered but not as part of a self-described infrastructure bill, in 
part because the funding sources should be very different.
  The price tag, $2.3 trillion--soon to be $2.7 trillion, we are told--
and also the scope of the bill are bad enough, but what I want to talk 
about tonight is the equally concerning way the Biden administration 
plans to pay for this massive new legislation. They want to pay for the 
bulk of it by completely reversing the progress we made

[[Page S2116]]

over the past few years in making America competitive again and making 
our workers competitive again.
  In the 2 years before COVID-19, we saw record growth in jobs and 
wages, in large part thanks to the pro-growth policies we put in place 
through the 2017 tax cuts and reforms. The nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office has found that 70 percent of the savings from the 2017 
corporate tax cuts went into workers' wages. Seventy percent, they say, 
went into workers' pockets. It is one reason that, leading up to the 
pandemic in February, a year and a couple of months ago, we had the 
19th straight month--19th straight month--of wage growth of 3 percent 
or more annually. That was great news in my home State of Ohio. We 
hadn't had wage growth like that in over a decade, maybe two decades. 
Most of that benefit, by the way, went to middle and lower income 
workers--exactly what you want.
  During that time period a couple of years before the pandemic hit, we 
tied the 50-year low in unemployment at 3.5 percent and had the lowest 
unemployment ever for Blacks and Hispanics. In fact, before the 
pandemic, we had reached the lowest poverty rate--10.5 percent--since 
we started recording this data back in 1959. It was the lowest poverty 
rate on record.
  Importantly, tax reform also stopped these corporate inversions. You 
will remember this. Companies were actually becoming foreign companies 
so they could get from under our Tax Code. This made no sense. It was 
happening during the Obama administration and during the first year of 
the Trump administration. We also ended the so-called lockout effect, 
caused by a Tax Code that made it too expensive to bring foreign 
earnings back home. So people kept their earnings overseas. In fact, 
during those couple of years, the $1.6 trillion in overseas earnings 
has now come back home to invest and create jobs here--$1.6 trillion. 
We want that money here.
  As a result of those changes, the largest U.S. companies increased 
domestic research and development spending by 25 percent to $707 
billion, and capital expenditures went up by 20 percent to $1.4 
trillion. The Biden plan would throw all of that positive progress out. 
It would change our competitiveness to put us back where we were before 
or worse.
  The administration's corporate tax increase raises the combined 
Federal and State corporate rates from an average of 25.8 percent to 
32.8 percent. It would put us, again, as having the highest rate in the 
developed world. These tax hikes, by the way, when you include the 
international tax hikes, are actually five times as large as the 
corresponding cuts in 2017, based on the analysis that has been done. 
By the way, this would also, of course, give us not just the highest 
tax rate among the developed countries but also a far higher tax rate 
than countries like China with whom we are trying to compete.
  It also changes the international tax code to make it much more 
costly for U.S. companies to operate outside of the United States, 
punishing American workers who have jobs here supporting international 
sales. I use the example of Procter & Gamble in my hometown of 
Cincinnati. They are headquartered in Ohio, but they do business all 
over the world. They have told me that it will be far more expensive 
for them to do that, even uncompetitive for them to be working 
globally, because we will be the only developed country in the world 
that will charge them a tax to do that, and that will hurt the jobs in 
Cincinnati, OH, that support international sales.
  It just doesn't make any sense. Why would we want to go back to that 
and have that lockout effect where profits are kept overseas and where 
companies actually become foreign companies?
  In the Biden plan, it also eliminates the so-called foreign-derived 
intangible income provision. This was a carrot that we put in the law 
very deliberately, a carrot for companies to bring their intellectual 
property back here. By the way, that is what Google did. So did Cisco. 
So did Qualcomm. So did Synopsys. So did Facebook. They actually 
brought valuable intellectual property back home, creating high-paying 
high-tech jobs here in the United States of America. Why would we want 
to change that?
  The bottom line is that this tax plan that has been proposed would 
make us uncompetitive again in the global economy, and the Biden 
administration knows it.
  That is why, when Treasury Secretary Yellen announced the proposal to 
increase these taxes, she actually asked other countries around the 
world to raise their own corporate taxes. She pleaded with them: We are 
going to raise ours. You need to now raise your taxes.
  Of course, when she said we need to do that to create a more level 
playing field, other countries in the world said: This is great. We are 
going to get more American investment and more business for our 
companies. In fact, right after she made that announcement, the 
Minister for Finance in Ireland was asked the question. He said he had 
no interest in joining America in raising taxes--nor do others. China 
is not going to raise its taxes. In fact, these countries are 
continuing to do what they have been doing, which is to knock down 
barriers to jobs and investment in their economies, and that makes 
sense from their points of view. It makes sense from our point of view 
to continue to be competitive also.
  The tax increases would leave America standing alone atop the 
corporate tax rate chart. Studies by the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office and others have shown that, again, it is American workers 
who will bear the brunt of these corporate tax hikes in the form of 
lost jobs and lower wages.
  Because of the tax hikes, the University of Pennsylvania's Penn 
Wharton model, in analyzing this Biden plan, actually projects that we 
will see a nearly 1-percent decrease in the GDP and a 0.7-percent 
decrease in wages by 2031 over current projections. Now, this is 
extraordinary to me because that is despite the economic benefit--the 
obvious benefit--we are going to get from this infrastructure spending. 
So, despite all of that benefit, we are still going to see a reduction 
in our economy, or economic growth, and a reduction in wages. This 
harms American workers, particularly those toward the bottom of the 
economic ladder.
  The bottom line is that the $2.1 trillion tax hike used to pay for 
this infrastructure bill will harm middle-class families and our 
businesses, and I believe the American people get that. They recognize 
that this is not the way forward for our economy or for our 
infrastructure.
  Instead, let's follow the proven bipartisan model on infrastructure. 
Let's keep the plan to real infrastructure. Let's agree to what it is. 
Let's do it generously. Let's include broadband. Let's include water 
projects. Let's make it real infrastructure, though. Then let's come up 
with sensible pay-fors, including user fees. That is what the American 
people want, and that is what they deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas


                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, legislation called the Judiciary Act of 
2021 was introduced last week that would immediately expand the Supreme 
Court to 13 Justices.
  If this is serious in its intent, it is foolish. There is no need to 
expand the Court in order to meet the demands of its workload. After 
the peaking in 2006, when President George W. Bush was in office, the 
number of cases on the docket has now plummeted.
  In 2019, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon 
appointed by President Clinton, told NPR that there is no need to 
expand the Court, saying: ``Nine seems to be a good number.''
  With that established, this is a transparent ploy for power that 
would undermine trust in the fair application of law and delegitimize 
the highest Court in the land.
  If this is really a serious policy piece of legislation, we certainly 
wouldn't change the number of Supreme Court Justices immediately. If it 
weren't just politics, we certainly wouldn't change the Justices before 
another election. In fact, Senator Joe Biden, on this Senate floor, 
called FDR's attempt to pack the Court ``a power grab,'' and as a 
Presidential candidate this last year, he refused to endorse expanding 
the number of Justices.
  Earlier this month, Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President 
Clinton, said the Court's authority depends on ``a trust that the Court 
is guided by legal principles, not politics.'' He continued by saying, 
``Structural alteration motivated by the perception of

[[Page S2117]]

political influence can only feed that latter perception, further 
eroding that trust.''
  If the public sees any judge and Supreme Court Justices as 
politicians in robes, the public's confidence in the courts and in the 
rule of law itself can only be diminished, diminishing the Court's 
power, including its power to act as a check on other branches of 
government.
  Last August, Gallup found that 58 percent of Americans approve of the 
job the Supreme Court is doing. In fact, the Supreme Court's approval 
ratings have actually increased in the last several years. Polling from 
February of this year finds that 35 percent of Americans approve of the 
job that we in Congress are doing, and that is up from 15 percent not 
many days ago.
  I raise this data to demonstrate that the Supreme Court is an 
institution which a majority of Americans continues to place its trust 
in. That is a significant circumstance in today's polarized world, but 
a majority of Americans still believes it can trust the Supreme Court. 
If we in Congress inject ourselves into the size of the Court's 
composition, Justice Breyer is exactly right, in that the trust the 
American people have that the rulings will be delivered on a fair 
reading of the law will be further undermined.
  On the Republican side of the aisle, we have seen our share of 
defeats in recent years, and not once when the Republican Party 
controlled Congress and had the White House were there efforts to 
expand the Supreme Court. Can you imagine how the left or the media 
would react if President Trump had attempted to expand the Court to 13 
Justices and add 4 Republican-nominated Justices during his tenure?
  We have not attempted to expand the Court because the Supreme Court 
should not serve as another legislative body. That is our job--a job we 
need to do much better than we do today so that more than one-third of 
the American people can place their confidence in us as we pass laws.
  We have had the same number of Supreme Court Justices for more than 
150 years. Perhaps the Judiciary Act of 2021 is less an effort to 
expand the Supreme Court than it is an effort to intimidate sitting 
Justices to deliver rulings favorable to the ideology of my colleagues 
who are proposing the legislation. From guns to abortion, to religious 
liberties, to other hot-button issues, my colleagues are threatening 
the Justices either to deliver favorable rulings or to not take up 
divisive cases at all. If this is what my colleagues seek to 
accomplish, I am confident that the independence and integrity of our 
Justices will prevail. Indeed, this must prevail to preserve the 
American people's confidence in the institution of the courts, in the 
judicial system, in the Supreme Court.
  I am disappointed because, rather than working with each other across 
the aisle--across this aisle right here--to pass legislation, the 
Democrats are more interested in pursuing a larger Supreme Court and 
more interested in eliminating the filibuster to pass their agenda--to 
stack the Court to prevent their legislation from being struck down as 
unconstitutional.
  Process matters around here. We have to get to the point at which we 
utilize the process to get a fair and just result, wherein all people's 
voices are heard, wherein all Members of the Senate have the 
opportunity to express their views and have an opportunity for that to 
be voted on, but we don't skew the process to get a desired outcome. We 
all need to do our jobs to convince our colleagues that we are right in 
our positions, that our legislation is meritorious. We don't and we 
shouldn't change the process to get our way.
  The checks and balances of our Constitution work. They have worked 
for a long time. They are important to this country. When we talk about 
how divisive things are on the Senate floor and in this country today, 
the solution to that is not to change the rules in the middle of the 
game. It is to abide by the rules that protect our freedoms and 
liberties.
  I implore my colleagues to have the same faith in these 
constitutional guardrails as I do, to have the same faith in the 
independence and fairness of the Supreme Court that a majority of 
Americans has, and to believe that we can work together, that you and I 
can work together on behalf of the Americans we serve, the Americans we 
represent, without resorting to acts that will damage us all today and 
for generations to come.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________