[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 19, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2755-S2775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          ENDLESS FRONTIER ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                            Worker Shortage

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to give short remarks on three 
different subjects. Probably, for people wanting to speak, it will take 
me about 10 or 12 minutes.
  Thanks to Operation Warp Speed, effective vaccines are available on 
demand to anyone who wants to take the shot. That means individuals and 
businesses are beginning to return to a degree of normalcy we have all 
been waiting for.
  However, as I have made my annual tour through Iowa's 99 counties, I 
have heard from business after business that they are desperate for 
workers, but job applicants are scarce. Those that do apply often don't 
show up for interviews.
  Nationally, the economy added over 700,000 fewer jobs than were 
expected last month. This is very concerning, as a vibrant labor market 
is vital--vital--to a strong economy.
  I get that some individuals, even after being vaccinated, may be 
leery of returning to the market after a year of staying home to be 
safe, but the vaccines have been shown to virtually eliminate the 
chance of serious illness. Hopefully, the recent CDC guidelines that 
reinforce this by easing mask guidelines will reassure individuals that 
it is safe to return to work.
  However, Iowa employers repeatedly informed me that the biggest 
impediment to finding workers is the over-the-top unemployment benefits 
extended as part of President Biden's so-called COVID relief bill.
  I had 13 county meetings throughout Iowa during our last Senate 
recess, and in all but one of them, this came up as a very important 
issue.
  The simple fact is this: Under that partisan COVID package, many 
individuals can earn more if they don't work than if they do work. That 
is wrong in principle and has proven disastrous in practice, and, as a 
matter of fact, in American society, a job is very essential and center 
to the quality of life.
  As my Republican colleagues and I have warned for months, incentives 
matter. If you can earn more not working than working, it makes perfect 
sense not to work. I don't blame workers for taking that deal. I blame 
government policy that puts the individual workers in this predicament.
  Even prominent liberal economists have acknowledged a problem with

[[Page S2756]]

continuing to provide increased unemployment benefits. For instance, 
President Obama's former chief economic adviser, Jason Furman, admitted 
that if he were in a low unemployment State, he would be--these are his 
quotes--``thinking seriously about whether paying people more to not 
work than to work was a good thing to continue doing.''
  This is the case in Iowa, which has an unemployment rate of 3.7 
percent. That is low even in normal times, but it should be even lower 
as Iowa has more job openings than unemployed people.
  I stand firmly behind Governor Reynolds, who recently announced Iowa 
would end its participation in the counterproductive enhanced benefit 
program, and that ending will be effective June 12.
  President Biden talks about the government creating jobs by spending 
trillions of borrowed dollars, all while spending more borrowed money 
to pay people not to work. Now, that fails the commonsense test.
  In Iowa, the private sector is already creating more jobs than we can 
fill. The economy is poised to take off if the government just gets out 
of the way. Politicians should live by the same principle as doctors: 
``First, do no harm.''
  We shouldn't continue pandemic-era policies longer than they are 
necessary. That will only slow our economic recovery. Just as the CDC 
updated its guidance based upon the new reality about masks and about 
the vaccine, it is time for Congress to conform its policies to the 
conditions on the ground.


                        Pipeline Infrastructure

  Mr. President, on another subject, yesterday I participated on a call 
with Canadian counterparts that serve in Canada's Parliament.
  Just for a little background on these meetings, until the pandemic or 
until people got so busy they couldn't travel back and forth between 
the two countries, over a period of more than a half a century, there 
have been meetings of Canadian Parliamentarians and Members of the 
American Congress on an annual basis.
  One time, the U.S. Congressmen would go to some place in Canada; the 
next year, the Canadian Parliamentarians would come down here.
  In the recent 5 to 10 years, this has been done more like yesterday 
by Zoom or by a few people from Canada coming down here more often than 
we went up there.
  But over the period of my years in the U.S. Senate, I presume I have 
participated in at least 15 of those meetings where we travel back and 
forth, and I found them very helpful in talking about problems between 
the two countries. The problem is, it is almost laughable that we have 
very many problems between Canada and the United States. So we would 
end up talking about two or three issues, but they were problems that 
had to be worked out.
  So we had this meeting yesterday by Zoom, as I just said. We 
discussed issues of concern that impact both legislative bodies in our 
respective countries.
  Canada and the United States share the same values and are closely 
tied to each other culturally and economically. Canada is our closest 
ally. We need to effectively work with Canada and Canadians on issues 
that impact both countries.
  On his first day in office, President Biden made a hasty decision to 
shut down the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline--a decision that 
cost the United States and Canada over 10,000 jobs.
  This decision by President Biden sent a clear signal to other 
democratic countries across the globe. That message is, it doesn't 
matter if it will cost your State jobs and raise gas prices or irritate 
an ally; you would be better to listen to ideologues in your party who 
say something like this: Pipelines that transport oil are bad.
  But while the Keystone XL Pipeline is better known, the Canadians who 
were meeting yesterday were worried about the current pipeline in use 
that goes by the name of Enbridge Line 5. The pipeline, which has been 
in use since 1953, delivers the bulk of Canadian crude exports to the 
United States and also supplies fuel to Ontario and Quebec.
  In June of 2019, the State of Michigan filed a lawsuit to compel the 
decommissioning of the segment of Line 5 that runs under Lake Michigan. 
The basis of the suit is that the pipeline is a public nuisance that 
could become a source of pollution if it leaks. This month, the 
Canadian Government filed a request to stop the State of Michigan from 
shutting down the pipeline.
  Shutting down the pipeline would have an immediate effect on crude 
oil supplies for refineries and, as a result, increase the price of gas 
for Americans. We saw it over the past 7 or 8 days, how the Colonial 
Pipeline's shutdown has increased the price of gas--if you could buy 
gas. So we ought to be thinking about these problems.
  For the sake of North American energy independence and for American 
jobs and to mend relations with our closest allies, I am asking the 
Governor of Michigan to reconsider this lawsuit. For that matter, 
President Biden ought to step in and the entire Democratic Party ought 
to reconsider their stance on the use of pipelines. Take a cue from the 
former Governor of Michigan, now Energy Secretary Granholm, who said 
pipelines are ``the best way to move oil.''


                    Inspector General's Act of 1978

  Mr. President, my last comment, which will be very short, deals with 
the subject of the Inspector General's Act of 1978.
  When we passed that act, we required a President who wants to remove 
an IG to provide Congress specific reasons why that IG was removed. 
When Congress revised the IG act 30 years later, we amended that 
notification requirement and made it even stronger. We require 
Presidents to tell us their reasons and do it in no less than 30 days 
in advance of the removal. Neither of these provisions did anything to 
prevent the President from performing his constitutional responsibility 
to hire and fire people within the executive branch of government.
  Unfortunately, Presidents from both political parties--let me 
emphasize ``from both political parties''--seem to have a hard time 
following this simple notice requirement.
  When President Obama fired IG Walpin of the Corporation for National 
and Community Service early in his term, he sent a vaguely worded 
letter saying only that he had ``lost confidence'' in Mr. Walpin. When 
President Trump fired IGs Linick and Atkinson last year, he sent 
letters to Congress saying exactly the same thing.
  As I explained to both Presidents when they sent those letters, 
merely telling Congress that you have ``lost confidence'' in an IG 
isn't enough explanation. The loss of confidence occurs only after 
something happens. When announcing their decision to remove an IG from 
office, Presidents need to tell us what that ``something'' is. They 
need to explain why they have lost confidence. Failing to do so misses 
the point of the notice requirement entirely. The notice requirement 
isn't about a President's confidence in the IG; it is about the 
public's confidence in the inspector general system across the board.
  IGs are put in office to serve as government watchdogs. If IGs are 
carrying out their duties as intended, they are likely going to make 
more enemies than friends. They may uncover things that make the 
sitting President and his political appointees very uncomfortable. So 
what? No President is going to like every investigation that an IG 
undertakes or every report that an IG prepares. But IGs should not be 
fired just for doing their jobs or to prevent them from releasing 
findings that may be embarrassing to an administration, Republican or 
Democratic.
  Requiring the President to explain in advance why he or she is 
removing an IG gives Congress time to evaluate those reasons. It helps 
assure Congress and the public that the termination isn't based on 
politics but on real problems with the IG's ability to carry out their 
job.
  Of course, there has been no shortage of bad IGs who are deserving of 
removal. In fact, I probably had something to do with removing five or 
six of them in the years I have been in the U.S. Senate. Maybe some of 
those who ought to be removed are still in office.
  Recently, I called on the President, President Biden, to remove the 
Federal Housing Finance Agency IG due to an independent report by the 
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity

[[Page S2757]]

and Efficiency that verified longstanding claims to my office that she 
abused her authority.
  Whistleblowers originally came to my office in 2015 with concerning 
reports that the IG was personally and publicly demeaning her 
employees. She referred to them with demeaning names such as 
``weasel.'' The IG also allowed her deputy to threaten employees who 
blew the whistle to my office. That was over 5 years ago, and--can you 
believe it?--the abuse is still happening today.
  Based on my investigations and the CIGIE's findings, I firmly believe 
the IG needs to go, but I don't get to make that decision. Only the 
President can make that decision. He gets to decide when to exercise 
his constitutional authority. He has a right to do so and will 
ultimately be accountable to the people for a decision that he makes. 
All he has to do, all that is required for him to do under this law, is 
to give Congress proper notice. That is how things should work. That is 
how things were designed to work, but unfortunately, that is not what 
has been happening.
  It is clear to me that we have to be even clearer that when we say we 
want reasons, we actually mean it. When making the decision to remove 
an IG, Presidents must send substantive, specific reasons to Congress 
in advance explaining the actions they are taking and why they are 
taking those actions.
  That is why I introduced S. 587, the Securing Inspector General 
Independence Act. In addition to making the notice requirement even 
more clear, my bill would limit who can be an IG in an acting capacity 
and require CIGIE to provide guidance for annual whistleblower training 
for all IG employees.
  My cosponsors and I have an interest in keeping our IG system strong 
and neutral, and that is what this bill does. I encourage all of my 
colleagues to support it and ask that the Homeland Security Committee 
give it full consideration.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, before my friend from Iowa leaves 
the floor, and he is my friend, I didn't come to debate the Line 5 
Pipeline that goes under the Great Lakes of Michigan, but I will say 
that this is an aging pipeline under a precious resource called the 
Great Lakes, 20 percent of the world's freshwater. The Governor is 
really balancing right now what are issues that relate to safety and 
trying to make sure that we don't have a spill in the Great Lakes that 
would just devastate not only our economy and way of life but the 
country's as well.


                                S. 1260

  Mr. President, I always say that the people in Michigan can outwork, 
outbuild, and outimagine anybody. Whether we are building the new Ford 
all-electric F-150 truck that President Biden rode yesterday when he 
was in Michigan or whether it is armored vehicles that keep members of 
the military safe in war zones; whether it is solar panels and wind 
turbines and appliances and furniture or dollies strong enough to move 
helicopters, Michigan's manufacturing workers are the best in the 
world, period. Their hard work makes our Nation stronger.
  Unfortunately, there are times when our Nation hasn't returned the 
favor. Each year, Federal Agencies spend billions of dollars in 
taxpayer money on products from the private sector, everything from 
vehicles, to office furniture, to electronics.
  The Buy American Act, which was signed back in 1933, says the Federal 
Government should give preference to high-quality products here in 
America. Common sense, right? American taxpayer dollars should go to 
American manufacturers, American businesses, and American workers. 
Unfortunately, loopholes and waivers and outright noncompliance by 
Federal Agencies mean that, too many times, American taxpayer dollars 
instead go to foreign companies that compete against American 
manufacturers and American workers.
  Back in 2018, I released a report that showed that between 2008 and 
2016, exceptions and waivers to the Buy American Act allowed Federal 
Agencies to spend about $92 billion on foreign-made products. That is 
$92 billion in missed opportunities for American businesses and 
American workers.
  That is why Senator Braun and I introduced the Make It in America 
Act, along with Senator Peters, Senator Portman, and Senator Baldwin. I 
am grateful that Chairman Peters and Ranking Member Portman got this 
commonsense bill into the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee as part of the bill in front of us today, the Endless 
Frontier Act.
  I also want to thank President Biden. His administration reached out 
to me and asked to be briefed on the report that we had done, and 
initial executive orders that they put in place were very much in line 
with our recommendations, and I know they are very supportive of this 
bill.
  My legislation ensures that we are holding Federal Agencies 
accountable when enforcing Buy American Act activities. It adds new 
guardrails to the waivers. Right now, we have waivers, but there has 
been no transparency, no accountability, and over the years, no 
training really for how to administer it. Sometimes it is just easier 
to do a waiver than it is to do an extensive search about whether there 
are businesses in America that could do this work or provide a product.
  It also calls on products purchased by Federal Agencies to 
incorporate more domestic content. The supply chain is so important. So 
much of our job creation is in the parts that go into the product. And 
it helps ensure that American companies aren't undercut by cheap 
foreign products.
  Of course, rules don't matter if nobody enforces them, so, again, it 
is important that this legislation makes the Made in America Office a 
permanent part of the Office of Management and Budget. It will ensure 
that American workers and businesses receive preference regardless of 
who is in the Oval Office.
  It is important to emphasize that the legislation doesn't just 
benefit big businesses, and this is important. It calls for Agencies to 
use a wonderfully successful entity called the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership so that small businesses and medium-sized manufacturers 
have more opportunities to sell their products to the Federal 
Government or provide materials for federally funded infrastructure 
projects. And, by the way, there is oftentimes a situation where a 
company could retool pretty quickly to provide a product if they knew 
that we were interested, if we were going to purchase, and we should 
give them the opportunity if there is an American company that can step 
up and be able to create that for us.

  Everyone says we need to make more things in America, and here is an 
opportunity to put those words into action. I urge colleagues to pass 
the Endless Frontier Act, to get the Make It in America Act signed into 
law, and use our American tax dollars to purchase great American 
products that support great-paying American jobs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                                 China

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I like calling the Presiding Officer 
``Mr. President.''
  Let me appreciate the Presiding Officer's support about what I am 
going to speak today to address one of the most significant foreign 
policy challenges of our time, which is the U.S.-China relationship; a 
challenge that the Senate, I believe, is ready to meet with bold, 
bipartisan action.
  Just weeks ago, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made history 
when we passed the Strategic Competition Act of 2021 by an overwhelming 
bipartisan vote of 21 to 1. This historic, bipartisan legislation is 
clear-eyed about the challenges we face, and it is designed to meet 
this consequential moment in U.S.-China relations.
  Over the past few years, China has accelerated its rise to power and 
sharpened its efforts to undermine the liberal international order that 
brought the American people and our allies so much prosperity and 
stability in the 20th century.
  We invited China to be engaged in the international order. We invited 
them into the World Trade Organization. We invited them into an 
international forum. We opened markets with them, all with the 
expectation that China, by being ultimately invited into the 
international order, would be part of the international order.
  Unfortunately, instead of playing by the rules, China, under Xi 
Jinping, has

[[Page S2758]]

sought to undermine them. Today, China is challenging the United States 
across every dimension of power--political, diplomatic, economic, 
innovation, military, even cultural--and advancing an alternative and 
deeply disturbing model for global governance based on old-fashioned 
military antagonism, predatory economic practices, and digital 
authoritarianism.
  The breathtaking scope, scale, and urgency of these challenges 
demands a policy and strategy that is genuinely competitive. Because of 
China's actions, the national security and economic future of the 
United States depends on framing our relationship with China today 
through the lens of strategic competition.
  This is not about a zero-sum relationship or resurrecting a cold war 
mentality. This is about recognizing that in the 21st century, our 
strategic competition will revolve around the geo-economics of the 
future and America's ability to successfully compete in new and 
emerging technologies and other hotly contested domains. This is about 
securing a regional and international order for the 21st century built 
on progressive values, one that encourages healthy and fair economic 
competition, promotes global security and stability, and strengthens 
human rights around the world.
  So how do we achieve this vision? Ranking Member Risch and I 
incorporated input from almost every member of the committee to build 
the Strategic Competition Act. I believe the Presiding Officer had 
amendments as well, which mobilizes all of our strategic, economic, and 
diplomatic tools to clearly confront the challenges China possesses to 
our national and economic security.
  So I am eager to see the Strategic Competition Act move on the floor, 
alongside the other pieces of this package, recognizing, as I have for 
years, that America's ability to compete with China begins at home, 
replenishing the sources of our national strength. That is why the 
investments in the Endless Frontier Act provisions and the other 
domestic measures drafted by various committees are equally important.
  But even if we did all of those things alone, it would not meet our 
challenge with China because, first and foremost, China is a foreign 
policy challenge. That is why the Strategic Competition Act reaffirms 
our alliances and partnerships. It prioritizes building functional, 
problem-solving regional architecture in our Indo-Pacific strategy. 
Every witness we had before the committee, as we prepared for this 
legislation, said, You have to get your Indo-Pacific strategy right in 
order to be able to meet the challenge of China under Xi Jinping.
  It promotes U.S. leadership within international organizations. It 
counters malign efforts by the People's Republic of China and the 
Chinese Communist Party to influence those institutions, and it grounds 
our foreign policy in American values by authorizing a broad range of 
human rights and civil society measures to address abuses in Xinjiang 
with ethnic Uighurs and to demonstrate our commitment to the people of 
Hong Kong, Tibet, and China's civil society.
  It counters China's predatory economic practices by addressing their 
rampant intellectual property theft and unfair state subsidies. It 
helps other countries work together to counter China's corrupt 
practices. China goes throughout the world holding itself out as being 
generous to nations in Africa and Latin America and elsewhere, but what 
it ends up being is a debt trap of diplomacy where these countries 
become hostage to China--not only economically, but then, in a 
transactional basis, China says, Well, you can't recognize Taiwan 
anymore; or China says, You have to vote with us at the U.N. Human 
Rights Commission and a whole host of other international forums.
  And it bolsters U.S. economic statecraft, those economics tools we 
can deploy to advance our foreign policy goals like investing in supply 
chain security, infrastructure development, digital connectivity, and 
cyber security.
  Now, I do want to take a couple of minutes today to directly address 
an emerging line of criticism I have heard that this bill is somehow 
seeking to ignite a new cold war with China. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. The reality is that for more than 40 years, the United 
States has sought to draw China into the international community as a 
responsible stakeholder. But any clear and accurate assessment of 
China's behavior and, particularly, its behavior in recen years under 
the hypernationalist leadership of Xi Jinping suggests that simply 
continuing down that path would only result in disaster for the United 
States, for China, and for the entire world.

  Let's just review some of China's actions. China is committing 
genocide in Xinjiang against the Uighur people through forced labor. 
China has dismissed, out of hand, the ruling of the International 
Tribunal for the Law of the Sea with regards to its excessive maritime 
claims in the South China Sea, which it is militarily building up on 
and trying to intercede in the rightful passage of nations in the South 
China Sea.
  China has walked away from the commitments it made to respect 
intellectual property rights. China has chosen to betray its legally 
binding obligations and its own commitments to the people of Hong Kong, 
crushing ``one country, two systems'' and the vibrant democracy, 
economic activity, and autonomy of the people of Hong Kong.
  China refuses to respect the religious, cultural, and linguistic 
autonomy of the Tibetan people and is seeking to subvert the religious 
succession of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. China is using its Belt and 
Road Initiative to exploit lesser developed economies to its own 
advantage. China threatens the efforts of the international community 
to deal with climate change by building more coal-fired power plants at 
a rate that outpaces the rest of the world.
  So we must empower Americans, our partners, and our allies to protect 
against these egregious efforts to undermine human rights, security, 
and our environment. We simply cannot turn a blind eye to China's 
actions or wish it into becoming a better international actor.
  Now, I realize that in discussing the Strategic Competition Act, I 
laid out a laundry list of big, structural policy issues with China 
that we will need to confront as a nation, but it is essential that the 
United States meets this moment if we hope to build a more perfect 
world, one that reflects our cherished commitment to free societies, 
free markets, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and the 
dignity of all humankind. At the end of the day, that is what this 
Strategic Competition Act is all about.
  So I look forward to a robust debate and discussion with my 
colleagues over the next week or two about how to restructure and 
rework U.S. policy towards China so that we can be, after far too long, 
genuinely competitive. Together, we have to ensure the United States 
reclaims our place as a leader of nations and a force for good in a 
chaotic and increasingly complex world.


                              Middle East

  Mr. President, now, on another note, I know we have great challenges 
in the world. We are having a great challenge in the Middle East. I 
would just simply say that I am not a fan of having resolutions brought 
to the floor of the Senate without the appropriate consideration of the 
committee of jurisdiction--in this case, the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee--so that informed, deliberate debate and consensus agreements 
come together in the best pursuit of foreign policy.
  It is easy to get caught up in the passions of the moment. It is much 
more difficult to think about what is the right policy and procedure 
and action the United States should take in any given part of the 
world.
  So I know there is a bunch of resolutions that are being flown 
around--none of which have gone to the committee--some that have merit 
in each and every dimension but also have challenges. They fall short 
of what I think would need to be done, and I would urge colleagues to, 
particularly at this moment, have restraint, and I would urge the 
ability for the committee to be able to consider what is the 
appropriate course of action, whether it be at this time or any other 
time, as our Nation faces global challenges.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

[[Page S2759]]

  



                           Economic Recovery

  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, during my recent travels across Iowa on my 
99-county tour, I couldn't help but notice the number of ``Help 
Wanted'' or ``Now Hiring'' signs on storefronts along nearly every 
highway and Main Street.
  In an era where we seem to live through one unprecedented occurrence 
after another, the dire job situation has become the latest 
extraordinary event as millions of Americans remain unemployed, despite 
an abundance of jobs that need to be filled.
  In fact, the number of available jobs has reached an alltime record 
high, 8.1 million positions that need to be filled. And 44 percent of 
all small business owners have openings they cannot fill, another 
record. What makes this all the more stunning is that the Nation's 
unemployment rate increased last month to 6.1 percent. There are now 
more than 9 million jobless Americans, and nearly a third of those have 
been unemployed for a year or more.
  In Iowa, the number of unemployed slowly inched upwards in February 
and March, and we continue to have more job openings than we do job 
seekers. There are more than 62,000 job listings posted on the Iowa 
Workforce Development website, which exceeds the total number of Iowans 
filing for unemployment benefits.
  The jobs span a variety of occupations and locations in the State, 
and employers are desperate to fill them. The police department of Iowa 
City is urgently trying to hire 10 officers and is offering a $5,000 
signing bonus to new recruits. And I should note that another factor 
here could be the ongoing efforts to defund the police being pushed by 
folks on the left.

  The owner of the Blind Pig restaurant in Cedar Rapids is paying 
higher wages plus a $500 sign-on bonus, but even that isn't enough to 
attract workers. He says in the past he would get up to 50 applicants 
when he placed a ``Help Wanted'' notice, but now he might get 2. Yep, 
that is it. Two, he said, if he is lucky.
  So what gives? Part of the problem is that the government pays folks 
more to stay home than to go to work.
  I have heard from restaurant owners in Bellevue who need about 36 
employees between their two locations and can only find 20. They have 
been forced to suspend plans to expand, costing additional jobs and 
stifling economic development.
  Similarly, the owner of a small business in Cedar Rapids that offers 
good-paying jobs that don't require a college degree was turned down by 
three separate people because they chose to stay on unemployment 
instead.
  I have also heard from folks who run in-home care services in West 
Des Moines and Cedar Rapids about their difficulties hiring providers 
for their professional care teams. Again, this is all due, in large 
part, to the Federal Government's excessive unemployment perks.
  This may have made some sense a year ago, when there was plenty of 
uncertainty. But due to the success of Operation Warp Speed, we now 
have vaccines; and COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are 
trending down.
  Despite thousands being out of work in Siouxland, local businesses 
can't find the workers they need. The store manager of Sam's Mini Mart 
says: ``People come in here and say, why work when I don't have to, 
when unemployment's going to pay me?'' He goes on to say: ``We've even 
upped our wages, our starting wages, and nothing seems to work.''
  Paying people not to work is not helpful. It is delaying us from 
returning to normal, prepandemic life. For our businesses in Iowa, 
``normal'' means operating at full capacity.
  If we are going to begin erasing the damages caused by the last year 
of the pandemic and get our economy moving again, we cannot continue to 
let Democrats disincentivize work.
  Thankfully, in Iowa, our great Governor, Kim Reynolds, has already 
taken steps to curb the excessive Federal unemployment that has kept 
Iowans on the sidelines and created these challenges for our employers.
  Now, we need to do more nationwide. As a senior member of the Senate 
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am hoping to lead a 
bicameral effort to end the enhanced perks at the Federal level. The 
Get Americans Back to Work Act, which I helped put forward, decreases 
the extra Federal unemployment benefits to $150 per week at the end of 
this month and then fully repeals them at the end of June.
  It is time for Congress, the Biden administration, and State leaders 
across the country to do their jobs and help Americans get back to 
work.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I was watching Senator Ernst give this 
speech. And as to that ``Help Wanted'' sign, I thought I was back in 
Springfield, MO, my hometown, where I was this weekend. There were 
occasions when I was driving down a block, and I started looking to see 
if there was a place that didn't have a ``Help Wanted'' sign up. They 
were everywhere--``Help Wanted'' signs, hiring bonuses, rates well 
above the minimum wage. Our minimum wage is $10.30 in our State. There 
were rates well above that being advertised on the ``Help Wanted'' 
signs.
  You know, we all were disappointed by the job numbers that were 
issued at the end of April. But, obviously, the job numbers didn't 
reflect the fact that there weren't jobs to be had. It was just that 
there weren't people taking the jobs to be had.
  We need to think about everything we can to create an environment 
where people want to go back to work, where people are encouraged to go 
back to work, and where people who can't go back to work have that 
basic unemployment benefit. Nobody is begrudging that, but I think it 
is clear that we have made some mistakes here.
  Now, many of us were concerned about this when it initially came up, 
and we were not able to turn back the additional bonus at the time, 
though the predictions were just too true about what might happen.
  What small businesses in Missouri are saying is pretty consistent all 
over the State. In St. Louis, the manager of Mary Ann's Tea Room said: 
``It is heartbreaking that the business is there, but I can't hire 
anyone.'' And that restaurant was forced to just close down because 
they didn't have enough workers.
  In Kansas City, the president of the Big Biscuit restaurant said: 
``We've never had a hiring drought like this before.'' And according to 
him, he said, there is ``no doubt we are up against unemployment that 
has been artificially increased and stimulus payments that give people 
the opportunity not to show up for work.''
  In Branson, just as the busy summer season is getting underway, the 
general manager at Mel's Hard Luck Diner says he is so short-staffed 
that they have to close Sunday evenings now--a time when they would 
normally be open, just to compensate for the fact that they don't have 
enough people to do the 7 evenings and 7 days of business that they 
were used to doing. He says he can't even get people to show up for a 
job interview, let alone show up to work.
  Just down the street in Branson, at one of the great theme parks in 
America, the Silver Dollar City Theme Park, they told me a couple of 
weeks ago that they could hire 150 people the next day--that would 
still be their view, by the way--if they could find 150 people. They 
have 150 jobs, and they have more customers than they have people, so 
not everybody could get in the park that would normally be able to come 
to the park.
  In Columbia, right in the middle of our State, the owner of Just 
Jeff's said: ``There's not a person that I come into contact with . . . 
as a businessowner or manager or something like that, that isn't in a 
terrible pinch right now for help.''
  That is just a snapshot of all we are seeing. I talked to one person 
who runs a family hotel chain. It is a big family hotel chain based in 
St. Louis. He said: We have the customers now who are coming back, but 
we don't have the help. We could fill more rooms than we are filling if 
we had people who could clean the rooms and get them ready the next 
day.
  Businesses are ready to be back and be fully open, but they don't 
have the workers they need.
  We had an amendment in the CARES Act, one of the five bipartisan 
bills we passed last year, that would have prevented people from making 
more when they are unemployed than when they

[[Page S2760]]

are working. I said at the time, when I voted for that amendment, that 
I was concerned that these enhanced unemployment benefits would really 
create a time when people didn't want to go back to work, and, 
unfortunately, that is exactly what happened in Missouri and around the 
country
  It has been a tough year, we all know that, for small business 
owners. We stepped up and tried to think of early ways to keep people 
on their payrolls rather than on the unemployment rolls. By the way, 
even at that time, many of those businesses were saying, well, that is 
a great idea. We would like to keep them on our payroll, but they can 
make more money on the unemployment rolls. Is that fair to them, to not 
let them go to this unemployment that the government and its policies 
made so appealing?
  They were trying to fight the worst public health crisis ever and 
trying to keep businesses afloat. Now they are trying to figure out: As 
we come out of the public health crisis, what do we do to keep that 
business going?
  You know, that misguided government policy--that comment Ronald 
Reagan used to make--is one of the scariest things you could hear: ``I 
am from the government, and I am here to help.'' This seems to be a 
case where that truly has been a scary thing: The government, trying to 
help, trying to reach out and do what at least a majority of our 
colleagues thought was the right thing, has created a situation that is 
different than it needs to be.
  Twenty-one States have now either decided to stop participating 
already or have announced that they are going to stop participating. 
Governor Parson in Missouri made that decision. As Senator Ernst 
mentioned, the Governor of Iowa has made and 19 other Governors have 
made that decision.
  The average unemployment benefit in the States in America right now 
is $618 a week. That is the average. That includes the $300 that the 
Federal Government has put into every one of those checks that are 
still going out at that level. That is $15.46 an hour. Certainly, one 
way to mandate a $15 hourly pay rate is just to decide that is what you 
are going to make if you are unemployed. Well, it hasn't worked. It 
won't work. Our State of Missouri and other States are moving away from 
this.
  In Washington, we make policies, and one of our responsibilities is 
to be sure that we are keeping an eye on unintended consequences. The 
law of unintended consequences is one of the great certainties of 
making law, and we need to watch out for that. We have a huge 
unintended consequence here. We saw what happened when now the Biden 
administration is trying to explain why it is not their policies that 
appear to be slowing the recovery down, but we all know that this is 
part of that problem.
  We have done something to cause this problem. We need to figure out 
how to solve this problem. This should not be something that States, 
one at a time, reject. We need to get our economy back on track as 
quickly as possible.
  There is virtue in work, and I hope we make work more appealing again 
than not working.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, in February of this year, there was 
bipartisan conversation about what is the next step dealing with COVID. 
We knew we were coming out of it. Vaccines were going in arms. States 
were opening up. My State in Oklahoma was rapidly opening in February, 
and there was this dialogue about what would happen in the economy.
  Unfortunately, in the middle of that dialogue, my Democratic 
colleagues determined: We were going to go this on our own.
  We still stay engaged. One of the big issues, though, was 
unemployment. Would there be additional unemployment benefits that 
would be done?
  Now, myself and multiple others raised the issue on both sides of the 
aisle: How would this be handled?
  If it was a year before--literally, in March of 2020, there was an 
extension of unemployment because unemployment was at 15 percent at 
that point, and there were no jobs to be had. But in March of this 
year, when the agreement was finally made and a straight partisan bill 
was passed, we weren't at 15 percent unemployment. It was at 6 percent 
and driving down to the floor. Now we are below 4 percent.
  The challenge that we have is, there is additional unemployment 
benefits that have extended all the way until September.
  Now, that bill passed--a straight partisan bill--in March. By the 
Sunday after Palm Sunday, when I was back in my State, I was already 
having businessowners catching me and saying: What in the world? I 
can't hire now because I am competing for wages with someone in the 
Federal Government.
  What has that meant for right now? Now and May, what does that mean 
for us in Oklahoma?
  In Oklahoma, there are 37 percent more jobs available now than there 
were a year and a half ago before the pandemic began, when we were at 
the best economy in 50 years. Literally, there are more job openings in 
Oklahoma now than there have ever been in the history of our records.
  Let me run that past everybody again. There are more openings in 
Oklahoma right now for jobs than ever in the history of our 
recordkeeping for our State, but we can't fill jobs because people are 
making so much money on unemployment and they get the first $10,000 of 
that written off on their taxes. Those two pieces together incentivize 
people, literally, to be able to stay home.
  Our State has had to take a pretty radical step, quite frankly. We 
have stepped in with 20 other States and have ended the unemployment 
assistance, but we have had to take it the next step because we have so 
many job openings in our State. We are literally giving a $1,200 bonus 
to anyone who will go back to work. For the first 20,000 people who 
will actually get off of unemployment benefits and go back to work, we 
are paying a $1,200 bonus to those individuals to return to work. What 
in the world? Why would we have to do this as a State? Our State is 
taking leadership, and I am grateful to Governor Stitt and his 
continued leadership to be able to help navigate our economy and our 
families. But why would we want to have a situation where we have 
literally disincentivized work and encouraged people to not return to 
work? What Governor Stitt has set up is an encouragement to actually 
get back to work. That is better for families. That is better for 
children. That is better for our economy.
  Right now in Oklahoma, if you are going to build anything--and I mean 
build anything--good luck finding building supplies. And it is not 
because we don't have lumber. It is not because we don't have bricks. 
It is not because we don't have windows and shingles and all those 
things. Good luck getting it because they can't get enough labor to 
actually do the manufacturing. So everyone is running behind simply 
because there is a shortage of labor because we are incentivizing 
people to stay home rather than to be able to come back.
  Shots are in arms. Our rates of COVID have decreased dramatically. It 
is time for us to return to work. But now we are going to have a 
situation where we have right now--where half the country is 
incentivized to stay home. Now you have 21 States--slightly less than 
half the country--that are trying to incentivize people to get back to 
work.
  We need, as a nation, to incentivize work and to encourage families 
to be able to be engaged in productive activities. It is right for 
families. It is right for our economy. It is certainly right for us as 
a nation. And I thank Governor Stitt for his leadership in this area 
and for what we continue to do, but we have to get back to basic 
policies that don't disincentivize work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, let me say that I agree with my 
colleague from Oklahoma who just talked about the impact of the Federal 
supplement on unemployment that was passed here in this Chamber and 
signed into law by the President. It is time to end it because the 
situation has changed dramatically, hasn't it?
  Back when the unemployment additional benefit from the Federal 
Government was put in place, we had people who couldn't go to work. 
Thanks to COVID, businesses actually were shut down, many by government 
edict.

[[Page S2761]]

There were people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. 
Therefore, this Chamber stood up and said: OK, for those people, we 
ought to provide a Federal supplement on top of the State unemployment 
insurance in order to make them whole, essentially. Initially it was 
$600. Now it is $300. That is on top of the State unemployment.
  Now you have an exact opposite situation. You have all these jobs 
that are open. I just learned that in Oklahoma, it is a record number. 
Guess what. It is a record number nationally as well: 8.1 million jobs 
are being offered right now. That is more jobs than we have ever had 
open in the United States of America, and it is happening right now.
  At the same time, you have people on unemployment insurance who are 
getting the additional $300 on top of the State benefit. In Ohio, the 
average is $360 plus $300, so 660 bucks a week. Plus, the first $10,000 
is not taxed. So if you are a truckdriver making 40,000 bucks a year, 
you are being taxed, but if you are on unemployment insurance, your 
first $10,000 of UI is not being taxed. How is that fair?
  Well, it creates an additional disincentive to go to work. I am not 
saying it is the only reason people aren't going back to work, but if 
you talk to the small business folks in your State, you will find it is 
one of the big reasons. I think it is the biggest one.
  Another one is that people are having tough time finding childcare. I 
get that. Childcare is expensive. Part of the solution to that, of 
course, is to get the kids back to school. Fifty-four percent of K-8 
schools are back in business, but the rest aren't. Schools being closed 
makes it really tough for parents to go back to work because one parent 
has to be there to take care of the kids. That is true.

  Then, finally, there is an issue of the skills gap. I get that. The 
jobs that are available, some of them are skilled jobs. There are 
720,000 manufacturing jobs in America open right now--right now. Yet a 
lot of them do require a skill level that, unfortunately, our system of 
education and training has not prepared people for. This is why our 
young people need to be given more opportunities to get those industry-
recognized certificates to become a welder or become a technician or 
become a coder in the IT world or become a truckdriver, because we need 
those skills badly.
  But the biggest reason, again, that I am hearing all over my State of 
Ohio is the fact that people are saying: You know what, I am making 
what I can make on UI, and that is more than I can make at work. For 42 
percent of Americans, on average, that is true. Forty-two percent are 
making more on UI. That is not even including the fact that the first 
$10,000 is tax-free. In Ohio, it is more than double the minimum wage. 
That is what people are making.
  So this is a problem right now, and we should face it. By the way, it 
is in the interest of everybody to resolve this issue. It is in the 
interest of the small businesses that can't find people. Some of these 
businesses are literally shutting down. Geordie's, a restaurant in 
Columbus, OH, is closed. They literally closed because they can't find 
workers. Other restaurants all over the State of Ohio are going 5 days 
a week instead of 6 or 7 days a week or cutting a shift because they 
can't find workers. So it is definitely helpful for those small 
businesses and for all businesses, but, second, it is great for the 
taxpayer to not have to pay that extra 300 bucks a week. It is billions 
of dollars, tens of billions of dollars, even hundreds of billions of 
dollars when it is all added together, compared to what it would be 
under current law, where the $300 supplement goes until Labor Day--
Labor Day--with 8.1 million jobs open right now.
  Finally, I would argue it is particularly good for workers to get 
back to work, to get back to their careers, to get back to the training 
they need to keep up with what is going on at work.
  It is not in anybody's interest to have folks not back in the 
workforce. We should all want people to be back at work getting the 
fulfillment you get from work and the dignity and self-respect that 
come from work, but getting a paycheck and getting healthcare insurance 
again and getting back into their 401(k) plans and, again, closing that 
resume gap so they are up to speed on the training.
  I will tell you what is happening, and this is what concerns me and I 
think should concern every Member of this Chamber. Businesses are 
adjusting. Do you know what they are doing? They are not just shutting 
down. They are not just closed 2 days a week. They are not just cutting 
out a shift. Some of them are changing the way they operate in order to 
be more efficient. What does that mean? That means, when you can't find 
workers, you turn to technology, you turn to automation. And it is 
happening.
  I know there are Members of this Chamber who think that by giving 
more money to people, this is a very smart thing to do and it is 
helping everybody. It is not helping because those jobs are not going 
to be there in the future.
  There was a story in the Washington Post today about Huntington 
Bancshares. It is a bank in Columbus, OH. They are fielding literally 
dozens of calls from business owners who are trying to get financing to 
buy more equipment that will offset their loss in workers; in other 
words, more automation, more technology that they would not have 
otherwise gone to, but because they can't find any workers, they are 
using their money they would have paid workers to go to more 
technology. Those jobs are gone.
  I know, again, some people, maybe on my side of the aisle, think that 
might be a good thing, a more efficient economy. I want people at work. 
I want companies to be hiring more people.
  A good friend of mine is a manufacturer. She has about 200 people. 
She makes a great product--windows--in Ohio, southwest Ohio, Hamilton, 
OH. She is looking for 60 people right now. Sixty people. She is 
offering a signing bonus of a thousand bucks and offering other 
benefits. People aren't showing up. But when the $300 ends and when the 
additional $10,000 of unemployment insurance not being taxed ends, 
people will go back to work.
  The first State to decide ``You know what, we are going to 
unilaterally just say we are not going to take the $300`` was the State 
of Montana. My colleague from Montana told me recently that he has a 
friend who is a hotel owner, and he was having a job fair every week 
trying to get people to come in to apply for jobs. He was getting about 
one applicant per week. The week after the Governor said no more $600 
or no more $300 benefit on unemployment insurance in addition to the 
State benefit, 60 people showed up. That may be an extreme example, but 
I have to tell you, it is going to make a big difference.
  Let's help get this economy going again. We are turning the corner on 
COVID. We have a situation now where we can actually get started again, 
get the businesses reopened.
  I talked about the business owner in Columbus, OH, who was closed 
down. Do you know what his comment was? He said: I used the PPP 
program.
  That is the Paycheck Protection Program, which we all passed here.
  I got through COVID. We struggled, but we made it through COVID. We 
could make it through COVID, but now we can't make it because of our 
own government paying people more not to work on unemployment insurance 
than we can pay them to work.
  He feels like his own government has turned on him.
  That is not helping anybody. It is not helping the small businesses, 
it is certainly not helping the taxpayer, and it is not helping those 
individuals who are not getting back to work, back to their routines, 
back to the training, back to the 401(k) plan, back to their healthcare 
plan, and having the opportunity to achieve their American dream.
  I hope that we change our minds here and don't continue this until 
September 6 and decide, instead, let's get people back to work.
  I would also be for a $100-a-week signing bonus if people were to go 
back to work. I think that would be a good use of funding. Let's, say, 
do that for 6 weeks and at the same time stop the $300 Federal 
supplement. By doing that, those 8-million-plus jobs that are available 
right now would start to get filled, and we could really get our 
economy back on track.
  I yield back my time
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

[[Page S2762]]

  

  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, my friend from Ohio is correct. In many 
respects, it ought to feel like morning again in America. After all, 
COVID-19 is finally on the retreat. The vaccines have been a roaring 
success because of Operation Warp Speed. One hundred and twenty-four 
million Americans are now fully immunized, and another 30 million are 
halfway there. With the exception of a few holdout States, the mask 
mandates are gone, thank goodness. By all measures, our economy should 
be firing on all cylinders, but America now has a workforce problem. 
People are not heading back to work.
  In February, the Congressional Budget Office predicted our economy 
would return to its prepandemic size by the middle of the year without 
receiving any new stimulus from Congress. Regrettably, Democrats in 
this Chamber brushed off that optimism from the CBO. They decided to 
pass more stimulus, to the tune of $1.9 trillion.
  This time, the money was excessive. It was poorly targeted and passed 
without bipartisan consensus. Three months later, the results are 
unflattering for my Democratic friends. Last month, our economy 
produced a paltry 266,000 jobs when experts had predicted over 1 
million jobs--this at a time when our economy has a record 8 million 
jobs available, jobs that need to be filled.
  Small businesses are desperate to hire. Restaurants, for instance, 
are having trouble finding people to become waiters and chefs. The 
National Restaurant Association reports that, in January, 8 percent of 
restaurant operators said finding and keeping workers was their No. 1 
concern. That number doubled in February. It doubled again in March and 
then again in April. According to the latest survey, 57 percent of 
restaurant operators now say that finding and keeping employees is 
their biggest problem. The same problem exists across multiple 
sectors--hotels, construction, lawn care, welding, tech. The list goes 
on.
  Americans would be streaming back into the workforce if not for the 
counterproductive policies passed by the majority. Government is now 
paying millions of able-bodied Americans to stay home, to stay home 
when they could be back on the job. Expanded unemployment benefits have 
become a hindrance to our recovery rather than a help, just as many of 
us had warned.
  March 2020 was a unique moment of emergency that called for urgent 
financial relief for the American people. This body passed it on a 
sweeping bipartisan basis. But it is now May of 2021. The hour of 
emergency has passed. Americans need policies to help them reenter the 
workforce.
  Fortunately, millions of Americans have Governors who are pushing 
back against Washington's pay-to-stay-at-home policies. Governor Tate 
Reeves, in my State of Mississippi, is one example. I commend Governor 
Reeves for opting out of the expanded Federal unemployment funds in 
order to help our State embark on a full recovery. Nearly half of all 
Governors now share the same mind and are saying no to those 
unnecessary funds.
  Madam President, the American people elected a 50-50 Senate and a 
narrowly divided House. They do not want drastic changes or dramatic 
growth of government. They simply want to put this pandemic behind them 
and get back to providing for their families.

  Americans need government to get out of the way, and Republicans 
stand with the American people and on the side of a full recovery.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, first, I would like to associate 
myself with the fine remarks of the Senator from Mississippi, who sees 
every day, when he is home traveling in his State, the same things I am 
seeing in Wyoming--``Help Wanted'' signs all around our home States, as 
businesses are looking for people to hire, and the government's 
incentives are making it that much harder to find workers.
  Job openings right now are at a record high in America. There were 8 
million jobs available going into April. Yet in that month, only about 
one-quarter of a million people actually were hired. The unemployment 
rate actually went up.
  We lost manufacturing. We lost retail. We lost healthcare jobs last 
month. Construction jobs were flat. Ten million people are unemployed 
right now, even though there are 8 million job openings.
  Every Senator I talk to says that there are ``Help Wanted'' signs all 
around their home State. Nearly every American who wants a job should 
be able to find one. Yet it is really not happening.
  The question has been asked and answered on this floor by various 
Members of the Republican Party: Why can't small businesses find 
workers? Why are so many of these jobs unfilled? Because something like 
this doesn't just happen on its own. Oh, no. This happens as a direct 
result of the President's policies.
  President Biden and Democrats are paying people to stay home. That is 
why so many people are staying home. They are being paid more to not 
work than to work. According to one analysis, nearly half of all people 
on unemployment benefits with the unemployment benefit bonus payment--
the extra check--are making more money by staying at home than they 
would make if they go to work.
  These people aren't lazy. Oh, no. When the President and Democrats 
offer people free money to stay home, it is perfectly logical--people 
take them up on the offer.
  I believe the American people want to work. That is what I see at 
home in Wyoming. That is who we are. That is the fiber of the American 
people. We are the hardest working people in the world. American 
businesses want to hire. Yet Joe Biden and Big Government are getting 
in the way.
  President Biden has actually extended bonus payments until September. 
We are now in May. May, June, July, August, September--month after 
month, after month, after month of more of this. This is a grave danger 
to small businesses across America. If they can't find workers, they 
might have to close again. Then those job openings will no longer be 
there, and they will be gone forever.
  President Biden appears to be, in my opinion, in denial on this. He 
held a press conference recently, and this is what he said: It is all 
``loose talk.''
  This is not loose talk. This is basic arithmetic. Job openings are 
going up; hiring is slowing down; and nearly half of workers make more 
money by staying at home.
  ``Loose talk'' is when the President of the United States tells us 
everything is just fine when it is not. April was the most 
disappointing jobs report in more than 20 years--two decades. Yet 
President Biden says the jobs report ``shows we're on the right 
track.''
  No, it doesn't. Hiring has slowed down. Some say people aren't 
returning to work because of coronavirus.
  Madam President, let me tell you, it is very unlikely. We are 
vaccinating 2 million people a day. One in three Americans is now--
these are adults--fully vaccinated already. We are getting the virus 
behind us. We have been very successful with Operation Warp Speed.
  We should be filling the 8 million jobs available right now. Yet what 
are President Biden and the Democrats doing to fix the problem? 
Nothing, nothing at all. I believe they are making it worse by 
extending these bonus payments. It is time the President and Democrats 
worked for a solution.
  You know, I am proud that the people of Wyoming and the Governor of 
Wyoming have done just that. Wyoming has taken a leadership role, along 
with approximately 20 other States, in ending these bonus payments. It 
is going to give our economy a boost. It is going to lead to more 
hiring.
  It is time for President Biden and the Democrats to follow the 
successful lead of the people of Wyoming. Stop paying people a bonus to 
stay home. Reward the hard work that is a part of America and 
Americans' DNA.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, earlier this month, the Department of 
Labor's jobs report showed an uptick of the unemployment rate to 6.1 
percent and employers only adding 266,000 jobs, despite widespread 
projections of approximately 1 million jobs to be gained in April.
  To call this a dismal jobs report would be an understatement. It was 
the worst jobs miss since 1998. Yet it is not

[[Page S2763]]

surprising considering the many conversations I have had with Kansans 
throughout my travels. I have heard constantly how employers are 
struggling to find people for open jobs, largely because folks are 
staying at home due to the increased unemployment dollars and the 
stimulus checks that Democrats continue to push.
  Earlier this year, Democrats forced through legislation--without any 
Republican support--that provided $300 more per week in Federal 
unemployment benefits. This additional benefit, when coupled with the 
extended unemployment benefits offered by States, already means that 
the average recipient is making $15 to $20 per hour to stay home.
  Democrats have made it more profitable for many Americans to stay 
unemployed. That is because these policies are not intended to help our 
economic recovery. They are intended to reform our American system and 
create more dependency on the government.
  This leap toward socialism comes at a time when our Nation is on its 
way to reaching herd immunity and businesses are emerging from 
government-imposed lockdowns. Now President Biden has delivered them a 
government-funded labor shortage.
  I recently heard from a wonderful small business in my hometown of 
Great Bend, KS, that are short-staffed by some 70 employees--that is 70 
employees they are short-staffed. They are unable to match the strong 
incentive to stay home provided by the Federal unemployment benefits in 
order to rehire their workforce. The company's mission is to provide 
educational and work opportunities for people with developmental 
disabilities, giving nearly 200 individuals in the area the 
independence, inclusion, and training that they need to achieve 
success. This labor shortage directly affects their ability to meet the 
needs of the people they serve.
  I have heard stories from manufacturers across Kansas struggling to 
recall their workers, despite offering generous benefits and high-wage 
jobs or restaurants remaining closed because they don't have enough 
employees for their basic operations.
  Homes aren't being built because of a lack of labor, and hotels are 
turning away business because they don't have employees. One company 
even shared a story of offering a high-skilled and high-wage position 
only to be turned down because the prospective employee claimed they 
were comfortable on unemployment, and the hours clashed with the local 
bowling league.
  We have seen the broader supply chain begin to feel the impacts, as a 
lack of truckdrivers means that building materials, computer chips, and 
common household goods like toothpaste and toilet paper can't reach 
their destination, or food processing plants are short-staffed and 
turning out less product than usual, driving up the cost for consumers.
  Coupled with the trillions of Federal dollars that have gone out the 
door so far, we are beginning to see inflation. In fact, the Department 
of Labor's recently released consumer price index for April showed the 
largest spike in inflation since 2008.
  There are a record 8 million jobs--that is 8 million opportunities 
waiting to be filled across this country. In my home State of Kansas, 
we have 57,000 job openings, and the March labor report shows over 
58,000 Kansans received unemployment insurance.
  While there are certainly people who need access to increased 
unemployment benefits during the heart of this pandemic, unemployment 
insurance was never meant to be a permanent salary replacement.
  Rather, the benefit is meant to provide temporary assistance while 
folks get back on their feet. The government should not be in the 
business of creating lucrative government dependency that makes it more 
beneficial to stay unemployed rather than return to work. That is 
called socialism.
  Nearly half of the States have halted the additional benefits, and I 
have called for the Democratic Governor from my home State to do the 
same. Unfortunately, no State in the Union with a Democratic executive 
has stepped up and dropped the benefits, despite many of these States 
having the highest unemployment rates in the country. Instead, 
Democrats in Congress are moving to make the enhanced benefits 
permanent.
  For all these reasons, last week, 15 of my colleagues joined me in 
introducing the Get Americans Back to Work Act, which decreases Federal 
unemployment benefits to $150 per week at the end of May and then fully 
repeals them altogether at the end of June. Not only will this help get 
people back to work but the savings generated can be used to pay for 
roads and bridges.
  Let me close by saying ``work'' is not a four-letter, dirty word. A 
job brings dignity and purpose to all who have one. Over the past year, 
we have made great strides to develop safe and effective vaccines. 
Because more Americans are getting their shots, we have seen COVID 
cases decline to nearly a quarter of where they were in January. Now is 
the time for folks to get back to work, to get our kids back in school, 
and get our economy back to prepandemic levels.
  I yield the floor.


                                S. 1260

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, if I could just say something, for a 
second, while the Senator from Mississippi is here. It has been one of 
the great joys to collaborate with Senator Wicker on so many important 
policies last year, working on everything from aviation to maritime and 
foreign issues, and now working on this legislation and infrastructure 
and on many things that we want to do for the future. I thank him for 
his collaborative work on this process.
  No one probably relished the speed at which we moved through on this 
bill from our committee perspective, but, nonetheless, I think the 
committee actually had a lot of joy in the fact that we were at regular 
order and could process so many amendments and have that diverse of a 
conversation. The subject matter, in and of itself, is so important--it 
really is--to get this right.
  When I think about our attempts at America COMPETES in 2007 and 2010, 
we were enthusiastic, but we didn't convince the rest of everybody to 
put the money behind it. It makes me think that I am glad we are 
creating more of a robust debate about why this competitive issue is so 
important.


                      Amendment Nos. 1517 and 1547

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be called up and reported by number: the Tillis-Hirono 
amendment No. 1517 and the Scott-Johnson amendment No. 1547; further, 
that at 4 p.m. today the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in 
the order listed, with no amendments in order prior to those votes in 
relation to the amendments, with 60 affirmative votes required for 
adoption, and 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, between the two 
votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WICKER. Reserving the right to object--and I shall certainly not 
object--I simply want to say that this is the beginning of what I hope 
is an open amendment process, and I want to thank the chair of the 
Commerce Committee for working with us to get these first two amendment 
votes scheduled this afternoon. And I certainly withdraw my 
reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Tillis], for himself 
     and others, proposes an amendment numbered 1517.

  The amendment is as follows

   (Purpose: To amend chapter 11 of title 35, United States Code, to 
require the voluntary collection of demographic information for patent 
                   inventors, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. COLLECTION OF DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FOR PATENT 
                   INVENTORS.

       (a) Amendment.--Chapter 11 of title 35, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 124. Collection of demographic information for patent 
       inventors

       ``(a) Voluntary Collection.--The Director shall provide for 
     the collection of demographic information, including gender, 
     race, military or veteran status, and any other demographic 
     category that the Director determines appropriate, related to 
     each inventor

[[Page S2764]]

     listed with an application for patent, that may be submitted 
     voluntarily by that inventor.
       ``(b) Protection of Information.--The Director shall--
       ``(1) keep any information submitted under subsection (a) 
     confidential and separate from the application for patent; 
     and
       ``(2) establish appropriate procedures to ensure--
       ``(A) the confidentiality of any information submitted 
     under subsection (a); and
       ``(B) that demographic information is not made available to 
     examiners or considered in the examination of any application 
     for patent.
       ``(c) Relation to Other Laws.--
       ``(1) Freedom of information act.--Any demographic 
     information submitted under subsection (a) shall be exempt 
     from disclosure under section 552(b)(3) of title 5.
       ``(2) Federal information policy law.--Subchapter I of 
     chapter 35 of title 44 shall not apply to the collection of 
     demographic information under subsection (a).
       ``(d) Publication of Demographic Information.--
       ``(1) Report required.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this section, and not later than January 
     31 of each year thereafter, the Director shall make publicly 
     available a report that, except as provided in paragraph 
     (3)--
       ``(A) includes the total number of patent applications 
     filed during the previous year disaggregated--
       ``(i) by demographic information described in subsection 
     (a); and
       ``(ii) by technology class number, technology class title, 
     country of residence of the inventor, and State of residence 
     of the inventor in the United States;
       ``(B) includes the total number of patents issued during 
     the previous year disaggregated--
       ``(i) by demographic information described in subsection 
     (a); and
       ``(ii) by technology class number, technology class title, 
     country of residence of the inventor, and State of residence 
     of the inventor in the United States; and
       ``(C) includes a discussion of the data collection 
     methodology and summaries of the aggregate responses.
       ``(2) Data availability.--In conjunction with issuance of 
     the report under paragraph (1), the Director shall make 
     publicly available data based on the demographic information 
     collected under subsection (a) that, except as provided in 
     paragraph (3), allows the information to be cross-tabulated 
     to review subgroups.
       ``(3) Privacy.--The Director--
       ``(A) may not include personally identifying information 
     in--
       ``(i) the report made publicly available under paragraph 
     (1); or
       ``(ii) the data made publicly available under paragraph 
     (2); and
       ``(B) in making publicly available the report under 
     paragraph (1) and the data under paragraph (2), shall 
     anonymize any personally identifying information related to 
     the demographic information collected under subsection (a).
       ``(e) Biennial Report.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this section, and every 2 years 
     thereafter, the Director shall submit to Congress a biennial 
     report that evaluates the data collection process under this 
     section, ease of access to the information by the public, and 
     recommendations on how to improve data collection.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 11 of title 35, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``124. Collection of demographic information for patent inventors.''.

  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Scott of Florida], for 
     himself and others, proposes an amendment numbered 1547.

  The amendment is as follows

     (Purpose: To direct unobligated amounts made available under 
 coronavirus relief legislation for purposes of carrying out this Act)

       At the appropriate place in title III of division F, add 
     the following:

     SEC. 6___. USE OF PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any amounts appropriated under subtitle M of title IX of 
     the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-2) for 
     purposes of providing assistance to State and local 
     governmental entities that are unobligated on the date of 
     enactment of this Act shall be made available for purposes of 
     carrying out this Act, including the amendments made by this 
     Act.
       (b) Additional Amounts.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, if the amounts made available under subsection (a) for 
     purposes of carrying out this Act, including the amendments 
     made by this Act, are insufficient for such purposes, any 
     amounts appropriated under any other provision of the 
     American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-2), other 
     than the provisions exempted under paragraph (2), that are 
     unobligated on the date of enactment of this Act shall be 
     made available for purposes of carrying out this Act, 
     including the amendments made by this Act.
       (2) Exemptions.--No amounts made available under subtitle 
     D, E, F, G, or H of title II, subtitle C of title III, or 
     title V of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 
     117-2) may be used for purposes of carrying out this Act (or 
     amendments made by this Act) pursuant to paragraph (1).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1012

  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, in a moment I will propound a unanimous 
consent request. Before I do, I want to make some brief remarks.
  Right now, gas stations all over the eastern seaboard are suffering 
from a week-long gas shortage that has left thousands of stations 
completely out of gas. What we have seen is reminiscent of the 1970s, 
when Americans had to sit in long lines to fill their cars with gas.
  Why are we experiencing this crisis? Because Russian hackers attacked 
the Colonial Pipeline, which had to shut down operations on May 7.
  What is the reward Russia gets for attacking our infrastructure? 
Well, on the topic of Russia, just yesterday, President Biden doubled 
down on what is becoming a consistent ``soft on Russia'' position from 
the Biden administration, making the decision to disregard bipartisan 
legislation that passed through this body seeking to shut down the Nord 
Stream 2 pipeline that Putin is desperately trying to complete between 
Russia and Germany.
  That pipeline had been shut down. We had succeeded in a bipartisan 
victory, stopping that pipeline, but, sadly, Putin resumed building the 
pipeline shortly after Joe Biden was elected. Yesterday, President 
Biden made the decision to refuse to enforce the bipartisan sanctions 
on the company building the pipeline for Putin.
  If that wasn't enough, it is clear the Biden administration does know 
how to shut down pipelines--the Keystone Pipeline. His first day in 
office, Joe Biden signed an Executive order shutting down the Keystone 
Pipeline, destroying 11,000 jobs, including 8,000 union jobs--all 
destroyed by the Biden-Harris administration. For whatever reason, the 
Biden-Harris administration seems to have a philosophy that American 
pipelines and American jobs are bad, but Russian pipelines and Russian 
jobs are apparently good. And Russian hackers should get rewarded with 
Putin getting billions of dollars because Joe Biden refuses to stand up 
to Putin.
  On the impact here at home of the Russian hacking, Colonial Pipeline 
transports 100 million gallons of fuel all over the east coast every 
day. It is responsible for transporting 45 percent of the fuel on the 
east coast, running from Texas to New Jersey.
  The Colonial Pipeline is a critical piece of infrastructure, and when 
it shut down, it gravely disrupted the daily lives of millions of 
Americans--fuel for cars, for aviation fuel, for heating homes, all 
completely shut down. I am standing here today because one thing this 
crisis has shown us is that we need to diversify how we transport 
energy in this country so that if our critical infrastructure is 
attacked again--and we know it is going to be attacked again--that we 
have other reliable ways to transport energy.
  One way to strengthen redundancy and to strengthen our ability to 
make it through another attack is to allow liquefied natural gas, or 
LNG, to be transported by rail.
  Last year, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration 
finalized a rule allowing the safe transportation of LNG by rail. What 
this rule does is enable natural gas that is used for transportation, 
that is used for generating electricity, for heating homes, for 
manufacturing, to be transported by railroad, which helps Americans in 
hard-to-reach areas access the fuel that they need. It also takes 
pressure off of other critical infrastructure to meet our energy needs.

  Yet, now that Joe Biden is President and he has empowered officials 
in his administration who have a repeated and demonstrated hostility to 
American pipelines and American jobs and American energy independence, 
this rule is in jeopardy. When the Secretary of Transportation was 
before the Senate for confirmation, I repeatedly asked the Secretary to 
commit to maintaining the existing rule of allowing the safe transport 
of LNG by rail, and, repeatedly, the Secretary refused to make that 
commitment. The foolishness of that position is now evident

[[Page S2765]]

to everyone as we have gas lines and skyrocketing gas prices on the 
east coast and throughout the country.
  Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from 
further consideration of S. 1012 and that 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 an objection?
  Mr. MARKEY. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I appreciate the points that my 
colleague from Texas is making, but the bill he is proposing to pass by 
unanimous consent has not been considered by the Commerce Committee, 
and it would drastically and unilaterally tie the hands of the 
Department of Transportation from protecting communities from having 
massive amounts of dangerous, explosive liquefied natural gas shipped 
right through their towns and cities. I understand that the Republicans 
and natural gas companies want to railroad through the Senate a bill 
that would undermine the safety of the railroads in our communities, 
but we just can't allow this to happen.
  In 2020, the Trump administration moved to allow trains of 100 or 
more cars to begin transporting liquefied natural gas with no 
additional safety regulations. It did this over the objections of the 
attorneys general of 15 States and the District of Columbia. 
Firefighters opposed it. Railroad unions that represented the railroad 
employees objected to it. The environmental community objected to it as 
did the National Transportation Safety Board.
  Listen to this: A train of 110 tank cars, filled with liquefied 
natural gas, would have more than five times the equivalent energy of 
the Hiroshima atomic bomb.
  We cannot put our firefighters, our railway workers, and our homes 
and families at risk from loose regulations on what could be 
catastrophically dangerous trains. Too many lives are at stake, and the 
Department of Transportation should have the ability to review this 
rule. This bill that is being propounded right now would blind our 
safety watchdog when we should be putting these threats under a 
microscope.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, as the Senator from Massachusetts knows, 
there is an existing rule that went through the ordinary process in 
finalizing the rule--the ordinary notice and comment process--that has 
been promulgated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration.
  The Senator from Massachusetts also knows the reality that accidents 
by rail are very rare. While we surely don't want to see any accidents 
occur or have disruptions in transporting LNG by rail, what we have 
seen by the cyber attack on the Colonial Pipeline is that nothing is 
certain. There are risks to everything, but by taking precautions and 
diversifying our transportation methods for fuel, we make our energy 
industry more resilient to attacks and accidents when they, 
predictably, do happen in the future.
  Furthermore, LNG is already transported by vessels and tanker trucks 
and has been for decades. Obviously, accidents can happen at sea or 
with tanker trucks, but that doesn't stop us from transporting LNG in 
those ways. Accidents on railroads are rare, and if we can transport 
LNG by sea and in tanker trucks on the road, we should also be able to 
transport it by rail, where it is safer and more efficient and more 
effective.
  Lastly, to cope with the shutdown, the Department of Transportation 
granted waivers for hours-of-service requirements to truckdrivers and 
Jones Act waivers for vessels to continue to transport fuel to try to 
alleviate the shortage. That just underscores the need for LNG by rail 
as well.
  Unfortunately, as Americans are standing in gas lines, the answer 
they are being given by Washington Democrats is, the challenges you are 
facing don't matter to the Democrats. What we have seen from this 
objection is that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support higher gas 
prices--much higher gas prices that you will have to pay at the pumps. 
They understand that much higher gas prices fall disproportionately on 
low-income Americans and that they fall disproportionately on African 
Americans and Hispanics. The Biden-Harris Democrats are willing to jack 
up your gas prices, to make you wait in line, and to say, essentially, 
``tough luck.'' They have no answers, but they are going to block 
getting energy for your home, for your vehicle, for your life, for your 
family.
  As we stand here today with a crisis at our southern border, as we 
stand here today with a gas crisis and gas lines, as we stand here 
today with an inflation crisis on the verge of erupting, and as we 
stand here today with war in the Middle East, sadly, we are seeing a 
reprise of the 1970s--the same failed policies producing the same 
disastrous results--except, in the rerun, Joe Biden is Jimmy Carter 2.0 
and Kamala Harris is Walter Mondale. The country, sadly, is paying the 
price for the extreme and failed policies, and we are just 4 months 
into it.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                       Tribute to Roger Beverage

  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, there is a lot going on right now. I 
have already spent time on the floor today to talk about some of the 
economic issues--inflation, unemployment--that are happening. There are 
a number of jobs that are open in my State. In fact, there is a record 
number of job openings in my State. There is unrest in the Middle East 
right now, and there are all kinds of things that are happening in the 
world.
  Yet I can't help, just for a moment, pausing to be able to reflect on 
a friend of mine who, in a few days, will be sitting and hanging out 
with his 12 grandchildren and enjoying a moment of retirement.
  His name is Roger Beverage. Roger Beverage just retired as the CEO of 
the Oklahoma Bankers Association. He is not the big banker guy. He is 
the community banker guy. For 30 years, he led our State in banking and 
engaged in issues from the smallest of the small banks in rural 
Oklahoma to family-owned community banks that are scattered around our 
State. He worked tirelessly to help individuals get access to banking 
who were blocked out, and he made sure that everyone had a shot. He has 
been a remarkable leader, and he is just a great grandpa.
  In the days ahead, I celebrate his getting time with his 12 
grandchildren because he has given so much to so many others. As he 
spends time with his five kids--just the five kids who carry around the 
12 grandchildren at this point--and as he spends time with his bride of 
43 years, Paula, I want to say thank you to him.
  Roger wasn't born in Oklahoma; he was born in Nebraska. If you know 
Nebraska and Oklahoma's long heritage of football, you will know there 
has been quite a rivalry for a long time. Roger graduated from college 
and went to law school. When he finished up law school in 1971, he 
enlisted in the U.S. Army right in the middle of the Vietnam era. He 
served 2 years in the Army, working as a lawyer. He then served 6 more 
years in the Reserves after that. He retired as Captain Beverage. He is 
also a person who has never been shy or would walk away from a 
challenge and is one who has constantly been focused on service.
  In the middle of times that people up here in Washington, DC, wanted 
to equate big banks and community banks the same and to say: Let's put 
the pressure on the big banks but ``leave the little banks alone,'' 
often the little banks got caught up in that fight, and he was one of 
the folks who was constantly stepping out and saying: Allow community 
banks to serve communities.
  In rural communities, like many of mine in Oklahoma, that bank was 
essential to the economic development of what is happening in farming, 
in ranching; what is happening in every single person getting access to 
a car loan or a home loan or just being that friend when they need a 
chance to talk about financial advice.
  Now, Roger is a leader, and you can imagine, with bankers, who all 
have

[[Page S2766]]

lots of opinions and lots of great leaders, he didn't agree with 
everybody all the time, but I would tell you something I know about 
Roger: He always listened. Always.
  People would ask me about Roger and what I think of him, and I would 
say: He is a servant leader. He is a hard worker. He is a person who 
listens. He has strong opinions, but his strong opinions are based on 
his own experience in the facts of the day, but he is also a humble 
worker who is actually working for the best of everyone.
  He will be missed in my State--21 years of serving in the State 
chamber and leadership in so many areas in our State--but I am grateful 
today and in the days ahead that he is going to finally get a chance to 
just be grandpa and hang out with those 12 grandchildren.
  Enjoy those days, Roger. Thank you for what you have done to be able 
to help lead our State in this area and to be able to serve so many 
community bankers all across the Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                         Nord Stream 2 Pipeline

  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, as the disasters pile up left and right 
from these early months of the Biden Presidency, one might be called 
the Tail of Three Pipelines--three separate pipelines, three separate 
challenges, united by one consistent theme. In each case, the 
foolishness and weakness of the Biden administration has led to the 
disaster.
  First, President Biden began his administration by killing the 
Keystone XL Pipeline on day one. This decision was a gift to the 
radical environmentalist nonprofit industry in Washington, DC, and 
destroyed thousands of good, high-paying, blue-collar, American jobs, 
including many jobs in my home State of Arkansas.
  Second, last week Russian-affiliated hackers attacked the Colonial 
Pipeline--an artery that supplies nearly half the fuel for the east 
coast--causing widespread gas shortages across the Southeast.
  Instead of making the hackers feel the full wrath of the U.S. 
Government, the Biden administration called the attack a private sector 
concern. Colonial then paid the hackers over $4 million in ransom, 
presumably with Biden administration foreknowledge and acquiescence, if 
not explicit support. This payment, of course, will only encourage 
further such attacks on American companies.
  Third and finally, yesterday the Biden administration announced it 
will waive major, legally mandated sanctions against the Russian Nord 
Stream 2 Pipeline into Germany. This refusal to implement sanctions 
approved by Congress directly benefits by design the Russian company 
building Nord Stream 2 and its CEO, who--you won't believe it--is a 
former Communist, East German Stasi officer and longtime crony of 
Vladimir Putin.
  President Biden's decision to cave on Nord Stream 2 is just the 
latest show of weakness towards Russia by this administration, which is 
strange, coming from a party that spent the last 4 years all chesty and 
boastful, pretending they were Jack Ryan in a Tom Clancy novel.
  Nord Stream 2 will serve as a noose around the neck of Europe's 
energy supply. It will allow Russia to squeeze the sovereign nations of 
Eastern and Central Europe into submission.
  You may think I am exaggerating, but Russia has used energy as a 
weapon of foreign policy many times in the past. In 2009, for instance, 
Russia shut off the flow of natural gas to Europe during a dispute with 
Ukraine, causing energy shortages in the dead of winter. Russia has 
reduced or shut off gas to Austria, Poland, Romania, Lithuania, and 
Slovakia whenever those countries have refused its demands or otherwise 
displeased the Kremlin.
  Nord Stream 2 will deepen Europe's addiction to Russian gas and make 
it ever more dependent on the dealer. All of Europe could suffer, but 
Ukraine would be hurt the most of all. If the Nord Stream 2 pipeline 
comes online, Russia could bypass Ukraine entirely. This would not only 
cost Ukraine's economy billions of dollars in transit fees, it would 
also give Russia the ability to isolate and starve this proud nation. 
It is hard to imagine a worse time for this to happen, with Russian 
troops massed on the Ukrainian border, while Russia's dictator 
salivates over conquering or further partitioning this country.
  It is no wonder that the vast majority of Europe sees the dire danger 
posed by this pipeline. The European Parliament voted overwhelmingly 
against it on three separate occasions, including just last month. The 
United Kingdom, France, and Eastern Europe firmly oppose its 
construction as well. It is only a small but influential group of 
German elites who support this misguided plan.
  It is ironic that these men and women of power and privilege would 
doubtlessly claim to support the so-called liberal international order, 
as is the fashion in such circles, but their actions are directly 
empowering a dictator who poses the greatest threat to their dreams; a 
man who rose to power and has maintained it through extortion, murder, 
and brutality.
  Putin's most recent political rival, Alexei Navalny, was poisoned 
with a nerve agent and today is rotting in a Russian penal colony. 
Navalny's only crime was exposing the corruption and depravity of the 
Russian state. Yet President Biden wants to enrich and reward this very 
regime.
  Ultimately, the pipeline is emblematic of the Biden administration's 
``America last'' foreign policy, but there is still time to stop it. I 
am urging the President to reverse course immediately. There is little 
room for error left at this late, perilous stage. Nord Stream 2 is 95 
percent completed. Like an outstretched arm, Russia's pipeline extends 
ominously within reach of Germany's shore. We have to move quickly and 
in concert with our allies to make sure it extends no further.
  This Russian pipeline is bad for America and bad for Europe. If the 
President wishes to take the reins of international leadership, this is 
his opportunity. Kill Nord Stream 2 now, and let it rust beneath the 
waves of the Baltic.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 1714 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. COLLINS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                             Online Privacy

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, one of the benefits of vaccine rates 
going up is that school districts will no longer have an excuse to keep 
kids and teachers at home for virtual learning. But if I know kids--and 
as a mom and a grandmom, I can assure you, I understand the kiddos--
getting them back in the classroom won't get them away from the 
screens.
  These big tech companies in China and the Silicon Valley have done 
their jobs well. For many American kids, devices are integrated into 
their everyday lives. There is no escaping that 4-inch plate of glass 
in their pockets. It has become a part of their culture.
  Now, this addiction to tech doesn't sit well with many parents and 
watchdogs. We have all heard arguments that in order to break this 
addiction, we need to somehow change the culture and persuade young 
people to break their own ties with Big Tech. I have a different 
argument: It is Big Tech that needs to change its culture.
  As we all know, many of these companies are little more than 
glorified ad agencies. Facebook, Twitter, Google, and TikTok have all 
been successful because of their advertising strategies. Their job is 
to get eyeballs on content and keep fingers scrolling up and down the 
screen. This means that with every shiny new update, their advertising 
algorithms have also gotten an update.
  The more complex and pervasive these tracking figures become, the 
harder it is for users to understand what data these companies are 
collecting and how that data is going to be used. Not even tech-savvy 
adults can keep up with the legalese in those updated privacy policies.
  I think if I went around this Chamber and asked ``When is the last 
time you read the terms of service on an app update?'' I am willing to 
bet the answer for most of us would be ``Well, it was a long time 
ago,'' or it could be maybe even never.
  Big tech companies have taken advantage of that, and they have 
created

[[Page S2767]]

within their sphere a culture of pushing boundaries. It is do first, 
apologize later, and never ever respond to questions about their 
policies with a straight answer.
  This Congress, I reintroduced the BROWSER Act as a way of pushing 
that culture toward a more consumer-friendly consent model. It would 
require tech companies to add opt-in and opt-out features to their data 
collection policies and inject some transparency into the relationship 
between the user and the service provider. It is a great place to start 
and a key element of my virtual new protection agenda.
  Regulation hasn't kept up with innovation--that much is clear--but 
neither has demand for corporate responsibility and transparency. It is 
time to change that, and I encourage all of my colleagues on each side 
of the aisle to take a look at the BROWSER Act.
  But what about those kids? Tech companies are increasingly catering 
to young demographics, which means the kids are exposed to more of the 
online world every day, which, depending on what corner you find 
yourself in, is a productive educational experience, or it could be a 
life-and-death situation
  Now, the science tells us that, physically, children do not have the 
cognitive ability to understand the advertisements and data collection 
scenarios that they are being thrown into. Their brains are simply not 
developed enough. But the security moms out there are keeping an eye on 
all of this, and they will tell you they do not need an anatomy lesson 
to know when their child is in over their head. They see their children 
following trails left for them by predators, and they are bothered. 
They see their daughters falling apart over body image and self-esteem 
issues made worse by photoshopped images. They see the violence and the 
sexual content in music and movies that is created for adults, but 
children are being exposed to this.
  They have a really bad feeling about the expanding role of technology 
in their child's life. The stats and the scandals we are seeing every 
day back up their concerns.
  According to Common Sense Research, 98 percent of children in this 
country--98 percent of children in this country--under the age of 8 
have access to a mobile device at home. In 2011, just over half of the 
children had that kind of access. This means that 98 percent of 
children under age 8 are subjected to unprecedented levels of 
surveillance, data collection, and advertising attacks, even in 
supposedly kid-friendly apps.
  Alphabet, Google's parent company, got caught tracking children on 
their school-provided devices outside of school hours. Amazon got 
caught collecting recordings from children's Echo Dot Kids devices. 
Parents and regulators have raked Google, TikTok, and Facebook over the 
coals for pushing products to children that would increase social media 
addiction.
  In 2020, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 
received a recordbreaking 21.7 million reports of suspected child 
sexual exploitation, and 21.4 million of those reports came from 
electronic service providers. If you are looking for the danger, there 
it is.
  During yesterday's meeting of the Commerce Committee's Consumer 
Protection Subcommittee, Baroness Kidron had it right when she said 
that Facebook has not earned our trust, and I would encourage my 
colleagues working with me on this issue to apply this fact to Big Tech 
in general.
  These companies are entangled in our daily lives and in the lives of 
our children, and they have no incentive to loosen their grip on our 
attention by making things easier to understand. Therefore, we have no 
incentive to assume they are acting with the interest of their 
customers in mind.
  Remember that terms of service agreement we talked about earlier? 
Well, imagine standing by and asking a child to read, understand, and 
make an informed choice about whether to click the ``accept'' button. 
This is preposterous. We need to bring the parents back into the 
conversation and inject accountability and transparency into the 
process.
  Last Congress, I introduced the SAFE DATA Act with my colleagues, 
Senators Wicker, Thune, and Fisher. This bill contained a requirement 
that companies not transfer data collected from children between the 
ages of 13 and 16 without the explicit consent of their parent or 
guardian. This Congress, I hope my colleagues, Democratic and 
Republican, will be willing to work with me on similar legislation that 
truly targets this problem of child exploitation online.
  We will never change the culture of Big Tech--the culture Big Tech 
has created for itself--if we don't take steps right now to 
deincentivize the monetization of children's attention and browsing 
habits. This is a bipartisan issue.
  The Zuckerbergs and the Dorseys and the Pichais of the world who have 
come to testify before the Commerce Committee--they understand this. It 
wasn't a pleasant experience for them, but I do believe they have 
gotten the point. They need to understand that when it comes to privacy 
and safety mistakes, there is no safe harbor to be found here in the 
U.S. Senate, especially when it concerns the exploitation of our 
precious children.
  What we have going on is going to be even more unpleasant when these 
security moms start upping the ante and start cutting off the flow of 
all that valuable underage data that is produced by their children 
online that is being data-mined by these big tech companies and then 
sold to advertisers, sold to the highest bidder. That is the breaking 
point we are rapidly approaching.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to complete my remarks before the scheduled vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered


                                Cicadas

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I am fortunate enough to live in 
Baltimore, and I say that because I can commute every night to home, 
which is a real pleasure, to be able to be with my family in the 
evening. My wife Myrna and I normally take a morning walk before I 
start the day, and I can get the morning report from my neighbors as to 
what is on their minds.
  So, this morning, you might be surprised to learn that the major 
topic of discussion was the Brood X, also known as the cicadas. These 
are the cicadas that appear every 17 years. Now, I must tell you, that 
became our subject because we were all trying to avoid stepping on them 
as we were walking.
  Most of us would describe world events of the past calendar year as 
unprecedented, and this characterization is not wrong. For public 
health, for the economy, and for our democracy, the year 2021 has 
indeed brought us challenges previously unimaginable. However, 2021 
also marks a predictably predictable natural phenomenon: the emergence 
of what is known as the 17-year cicadas. Reliably, every 17 years, 
these insects emerge in the Mid-Atlantic in droves. People greet their 
visits with equal amounts of scorn and excitement. Some of that is 
depending upon age.
  I hope that we can use this 17-year marker to celebrate the 
scientific contributions of an unappreciated Marylander and reflect 
more broadly on the history of the relationship between humans and the 
natural environment in the Mid-Atlantic, especially the Chesapeake Bay.
  Maryland sees the highest concentration of cicadas on the east coast. 
Scientists estimate that in some places, we have more than 25 or 30 
cicadas per square foot or more than 1 million per acre. In addition to 
this astonishing quantity, male cicadas will perform a mating song 
that, in large groups, can reach the same decibel level as a lawnmower.
  The cicadas' visits last only a matter of weeks for the purpose of 
mating, molting, and laying eggs that will eventually burrow into the 
ground and repeat the process in another 17 years.
  In the words of prominent Maryland scientist Benjamin Banneker, ``If 
their lives are short, they are merry,'' noting that ``they still 
continue on singing till they die.''
  Benjamin Banneker's original handwritten document describing the 
cicadas in 1800 is at the Maryland Center for History and Culture in 
Baltimore. He accurately predicted the next 17-year cycles. Over the 
course of his life, he witnessed four 17-year cycles of cicadas. 
Benjamin Banneker may have

[[Page S2768]]

been the first scientist to observe and record the 17-year lifecycle of 
cicadas.
  Banneker was born in 1731. His father, Robert Bannaky, was a formerly 
enslaved Black man. His mother Mary was a free woman of mixed racial 
heritage.
  Banneker demonstrated a keen interest in the sciences after his 
maternal grandmother taught him to read and write, and he continued his 
education at a Quaker schoolhouse in Baltimore County. He quickly 
excelled in the area of mathematics and astronomy and is now considered 
one of the first African-American intellects to gain widespread fame.
  He is probably best known for authorizing a series of commercially 
successful farmers' almanacs that predicted weather and tidal patterns 
for farmers and fishermen. Banneker also predicted lunar and solar 
eclipses, contributed to surveying the land for the U.S. Capitol in 
Washington, DC, and reportedly built the first domestically produced 
wooden clock in the country.
  In addition to his contributions to science and agriculture, Banneker 
advocated for abolition in a series of letters he exchanged with 
President Thomas Jefferson.
  Mainstream historical narratives have largely excluded Banneker's 
accomplishments as a prominent Black intellect in the early days of our 
Nation. As we consider the enormous interest in the arrival of cicadas, 
it is appropriate that we acknowledge Banneker's early leading role in 
predicting the 17-year cycle.
  There are few historical artifacts from Banneker's home in Maryland, 
which burned down shortly after his death. Fortunately, we have the 
Benjamin Banneker Historical Park and Museum in Catonsville, MD, which 
Baltimore County administers. The park tells the story of his 
remarkable life and the impact the natural environment of the 
Chesapeake Bay had in sparking his intellectual curiosity.
  Maryland Governor Larry Hogan issued a proclamation declaring May and 
June 2021 as Maryland Magicicada Months to recognize the return of the 
17-year periodical cicadas and to generate public awareness about this 
phenomena.
  Fortunately, cicadas' buzz is worse than their bite. Cicadas do not 
chew, bite, or sting, so they are not a threat to humans, pets, 
animals, or most plants.
  The unit of time marked by the arrival of the periodic cicadas in the 
region is a useful interval to observe how the local environment has 
changed over time.
  Two years after the last emergence of cicadas in 2006 was the first 
year the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science's 
report card was released. The habitat health values were generally poor 
overall in 2006, with a dramatic reduction in bay grasses. In 2019, the 
overall score for Chesapeake Bay was a C-minus. This means the bay is 
in moderate health and is slightly improving over time. For its first 
ever score, the Chesapeake Bay scored B-minus. That means the larger 
watershed is in good health.
  The path to success for Chesapeake Bay's restoration remains steep 
and is only becoming more challenging due to the harmful effects of 
climate change. Warmer and wetter weather conditions work against 
progress on removing pollutants and creating habitats conducive to 
population regrowth. The Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Blueprint set forth 
a timeline for the six watershed jurisdictions that end in 2025.
  Now more than ever, we need State, local, and Federal partners 
working in tandem to meet these goals. The Chesapeake Bay Program will 
play a central role in that effort, bringing various Federal Agencies, 
State and local governments, and nonprofit organizations together to 
meet these goals.
  A 17-year review of progress for the Chesapeake Bay should energize 
the community to work hard to meet our goals. In order to do so, we 
need the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to play its role as the 
referee for the Chesapeake Bay Program. The success of the effort 
depends on the stringent enforcement of statewide pollution reduction 
plans by the EPA.
  As we consider the next arrival of cicadas in the area in 2038, it is 
impossible not to look ahead to the climate goals the Biden 
administration has enumerated. By 2030, President Biden has pledged 
that the United States should have reduced economy-wide net greenhouse 
gas pollution by 50 to 52 percent. This goal is also referred to as the 
nationally determined contribution, which is formally submitted to 
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. President Biden 
made this announcement during the Leaders Summit on Climate, which 
serves to demonstrate the return of the United States to leadership on 
climate issues.
  The natural environment is probably one of the most obvious markers 
of the passage of time and provides an appropriate moment of 
reflection. Seasonal changes, growing trees and crops, and even the 
arrival of the cicadas can push us to acknowledge where we have met our 
objectives and where we have fallen short on our goals. In terms of our 
local and global environmental restoration goals, we have a lot of work 
to do before 2037.


                        Tribute to Louise Foster

  Madam President, as we reflect on change, I would like to take this 
opportunity to congratulate a member of my personal staff, Louise 
Foster, on her matriculation at Columbia University School of 
International and Public Affairs this fall.
  ``Weezie,'' as everyone who knows her calls her, has spent the last 3 
years providing outstanding public service in my Washington, DC, 
office, first as a staff assistant on the frontline of constituent 
service and now as a legislative aide, applying science to 
environmental and infrastructure policy.
  While my staff and I will miss her, we wish her the very best of luck 
and a little cicada magic in her academic pursuits.
  With that, I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1517

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be up 
to 2 minutes of debate, equally divided on amendment 1517.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I would like to thank Senator Tillis for 
working with me on this amendment, amendment No. 1517, to the U.S. 
Innovation and Competition Act, which comes from our work on the IDEA 
Act, a bill that passed the Judiciary Committee last month with 
bipartisan support.
  Promoting innovation is key to ensuring the United States remains 
competitive in an increasingly competitive global economy. 
Unfortunately, the limited data that is available suggests large 
segments of American society are not engaging with a key component of 
the innovation economy, the U.S. patent system.
  Women make up only 13 percent of inventors. Black and Hispanic 
college graduates patent at approximately half the rate of their White 
counterparts. Closing these patent gaps would turbocharge the U.S. 
economy.
  One study found that including more women and Black Americans in the 
early stages of innovation could grow our economy by 3.3 percent. Hold 
that thought. Another found that eliminating the patent gap for women 
with science and engineering degrees alone would grow the economy by 
another 2.7 percent. We are talking about hundreds of billions of 
dollars of growth to our economy.
  But if we have any hope of closing these patent gaps, we must first 
get a firm grasp on who is and who is not using the patent system. 
Unfortunately, the PTO--Patent and Trademark Office--does not collect 
demographic data on applicants. As a result, researchers are forced to 
guess an applicant's gender based on his or her name, determine an 
applicant's race by cross-referencing census data, or explore other 
options that are time-consuming, unreliable, or both.
  Our amendment solves this problem. It would enable the PTO to collect 
demographic data from patent applicants on a volunteer basis. I want to 
repeat that. This is on a volunteer basis. Nobody is forcing anyone to 
provide this kind of information. This data could then be analyzed by 
the PTO and outside researchers to identify where patent gaps exist and 
how to address them.
  Let me be clear. Simply providing researchers more data would not 
solve

[[Page S2769]]

the patent gaps facing women, racial minorities, and so many others, 
but it is a critical first step. We need to have data with which to 
make decisions.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Senator from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, there are inventors in Colorado and Hawaii 
and across this Nation whom we don't even know about because the fact 
is, we have missed the opportunity to engage more people and have more 
diverse inventors.
  We have to look at this from several different perspectives. Let's 
look at it from a national security perspective.
  I have chaired the Intellectual Property Subcommittee for the last 
two Congresses. We heard endless reports of how China is churning out 
patents and more and more patents, breaking records every day. This 
commonsense amendment does nothing more than allow people to submit 
information that we can use to get a better beat on communities that we 
need to get into to create more intellectual property, to create more 
patents, and to get more people engaged in the patents and intellectual 
property system. With this bill, I believe we will make great strides.
  I hope everybody will vote for this amendment.
  Thank you.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1517

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. WICKER. 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
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 196 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--27

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Cassidy
     Cotton
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Graham
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Paul
     Romney
     Scott (FL)
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Tuberville

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Murkowski
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1517) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1547

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be up 
to 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, on amendment No. 1547.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, the COVID-19 pandemic was 
devastating to our Nation and Congress came together in a bipartisan 
fashion to provide unprecedented relief for 2020.
  Unfortunately, Democrats ditched that bipartisan approach in their 
so-called COVID bill, the American Rescue Plan, which was full of 
wasteful spending which has nothing to do with the crisis. It didn't 
receive a single Republican vote. Only 10 percent of the funds in the 
American Rescue Plan are related to COVID-19 and spending for vaccines 
is less than 1 percent.
  With our Nation nearly $30 trillion in debt and rising inflation, 
this spending is irresponsible and reckless.
  One of the more ridiculous examples of waste was $350 billion 
included for State and local bailouts, even though our States are doing 
just fine. In fact, California just announced it will have a $75 
billion surplus. Reckless spending has consequences, and we need to be 
fiscally responsible in every use of taxpayer dollars.
  This amendment would simply pay for the U.S. Innovation and 
Competition Act and all provisions of this bill by using unobligated, 
unnecessary funding for the American Rescue Plan. I ask for your 
support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I enjoy working with my colleague from 
Florida on many issues, but on this particular issue, I disagree.
  This amendment harms both my State and our Nation. It literally is 
saying: Take the money that went to local governments in the rescue 
plan and repeal it to pay for the Endless Frontier Act.
  It said by the date of the enactment of this, if that money is 
repealed, it can go and take other money that was part of the recovery 
plan that isn't spent and start taking money from it.
  I think this is the wrong way to do that. This would take money 
immediately away from Tribes. It would take money away from healthcare. 
It would take money away from broadband and, eventually, it could take 
money away from things like aerospace, manufacturing, and money that is 
there for the people who have been impacted by the downturn who no 
longer have jobs and need to be retrained and skilled.
  I think we should pay for the Endless Frontier Act as our 
appropriator colleagues will get the chance. Please don't ruin this 
bill by basically trying to pay for it with repealing State dollars.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1547

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1547.
  Mr. WICKER. 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 197 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Graham
     Murkowski
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). On this vote, the yeas are 47 and 
the nays are 50.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for adoption, the 
amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1547) was rejected.

[[Page S2770]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 226

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, I am proud to stand today in 
support of our great ally Israel. Israel is a vibrant democracy that 
supports capitalism, champions human rights, and holds free and open 
elections. Since its reestablishment in 1948, the United States has 
been Israel's most fervent supporter, and my home State of Florida has 
maintained a strong relationship with Israel throughout these years.
  As Governor, I took a stand against discrimination and prohibited 
State agencies and local governments from contracting with companies 
boycotting Israel. I also signed legislation to ensure the State of 
Florida will not support those who participate in the BDS movement.
  I traveled to Israel three times as the Governor of Florida to 
support our strong economic partnership and celebrate the opening of 
the new Embassy in Jerusalem. Israel's economic strength is key to its 
ability to defend itself and our common interests.
  Last Congress, I was proud to cosponsor a bill recognizing Israel's 
sovereignty over the Golan Heights and also supported the Eastern 
Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act to promote security 
and energy partnerships in the Eastern Mediterranean.
  While I visited Israel numerous times, my most recent trip as Senator 
gave me a clear perspective on Israel's proximity to its enemies Hamas, 
Hezbollah, ISIS, and Iran. For decades, the people of Israel have 
endured unyielding attacks from terrorist groups, like Hamas, which 
with Iran's support and funding wish to destroy the Jewish State and 
its people.
  Now, as thousands of rockets rain down, our resolve to stand with 
Israel must be stronger than ever. I want to be clear: Israel has every 
right to defend and protect its people from terrorist attacks and to do 
whatever is necessary to stop the murder of its citizens and foreign 
nationals residing in Israel.
  No country--certainly not the United States--would allow the murder 
of its citizens. The terrorists blasting these rockets into Israel are 
the same terrorists that chant ``Death to America.'' They don't believe 
in democracy, and they want Israel wiped off the face of the Earth. As 
our great ally and the only shining example of democracy in the Middle 
East, Israel deserves our full support. Today and every day, the United 
States must align with those fighting for freedom and democracy, 
clearly denounce terrorism, and stand up against those who do not 
respect human rights.
  The Trump administration made tremendous efforts to facilitate peace 
and prosperity between our great ally Israel and neighboring Arab 
nations, but we see the Biden administration trying to unravel this 
progress and appease illegitimate Palestinian leaders, demonstrating 
once again the Democrats' reckless disregard for the security and 
prosperity of Israel.
  The Palestinian leadership, which has been operating as a 
dictatorship for 15 years, had their last election for President in 
2005. Biden has restored U.S. aid to the Palestinians, who openly 
support terrorism, wage war against Israel, and do not recognize its 
existence.
  I am disgusted to see the anti-Israel agenda being pushed by the 
radical left. The Biden administration can't go down this path. They 
need to stop trying to rejoin the horrible Iran deal. Biden needs to 
stop his weak and misguided strategy and keep maximum pressure on the 
Ayatollah until Iran is no longer a threat to U.S. national security.
  Israel deserves our full support; Israel deserves the right to peace 
and security; Israel deserves the right to protect its people from 
reprehensible terrorist attacks; and Israel deserves the right to take 
whatever means are necessary to stop the murder of its citizens and 
foreign nationals residing in Israel.
  Because we have no greater ally in our efforts to preserve peace and 
secure our interests in the Middle East, I am proud to lead 29 of my 
colleagues today to condemn the escalating attacks by Hamas against 
Israel and thank them for joining me on this effort.
  The resolution reaffirms the unwavering commitment of the United 
States to Israel and its right to take whatever means necessary to stop 
the murder of its citizens and foreign nationals residing in Israel. It 
is time for the U.S. Senate to say that enough is enough and 
unanimously adopt this resolution to make it clear that the United 
States stands with Israel. These terrorists need to know that acts of 
aggression toward Israel will never be tolerated.
  President Biden should take immediate action to remind these 
terrorists and the world of the strong and unwavering support of the 
United States for the Israeli people, and we should stop cowering to 
the anti-Israel radical left.
  I look forward to my colleagues joining me today to stand with 
Israel.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senat proceed to the consideration 
of S. Res. 226, submitted earlier today. I further ask that the 
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with 
no intervening action or debate.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I 
will object to the unanimous consent request by Senator Scott and offer 
my own resolution. Unlike Senator Scott's resolution, mine is short and 
to the point, and I think it expresses the feelings of the overwhelming 
majority of people in our country and, in fact, throughout the world.
  This is what our resolution says:

       Whereas every Palestinian life matters; and
       Whereas every Israeli life matters:
       Now, therefore be it resolved that the Senate urges an 
     immediate cease-fire to prevent any further loss of life; and 
     further escalation of conflict in Israel and the Palestinian 
     territories, and supports diplomatic efforts to resolve the 
     Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to uphold international law and 
     to protect the human rights of Israelis and Palestinians.

  I would like to thank my colleagues Senator Warren, Senator Van 
Hollen, Senator Kaine, Senator Carper, Senator Heinrich, Senator 
Murphy, Senator Merkley, Senator Ossoff, Senator Leahy, and Senator 
Markey for cosponsoring this resolution.
  I would also like to point out that those of us who are supporting an 
immediate cease-fire are certainly not alone. We join with nearly 
unanimous calls from the European Union, with United Nations Secretary 
General Antonio Guterres, with Pope Francis, and with many others. In 
other words, all over the world people are seeing the terrible tragedy 
that is taking place in the region, and they want an end to it as 
quickly as possible through a cease-fire.
  Now, I happened to have read Senator Scott's resolution, and I was 
particularly struck by one sentence in it on page 2. What it says:

       The Senate mourns the loss of innocent life caused by 
     Hamas' rocket attacks.

  That is on page 2. Now, I certainly agree with that, and I think 
every Member of Congress agrees with that. The loss of 12 innocent 
Israeli lives is, in fact, a tragedy.
  But what about the loss of 227 Palestinian lives, including 64 
children and 38 women? Does Senator Scott not believe that the loss of 
those Palestinian lives, 64 children and 38 women, among others, is not 
a tragedy?
  I believe that we should be mourning the loss of Israeli life, but we 
should also be mourning the loss of Palestinian lives or perhaps some 
people think that Palestinian lives don't matter. I would hope not.
  And let us be very clear that when we talk about the tragedy that is 
now taking place in Gaza, what we are talking about is not only the 
terrible loss of life. As I hope most people know, Gaza, before this 
war, was an extremely poor and desperate community, and the latest 
Israeli bombardment has only made a bad situation much, much worse.
  Let us remember, Gaza has been under a blockade since 2007, imposed 
by Israel and Egypt. Most people are unable to leave. Basic necessities 
are extremely hard to obtain.
  Gaza is the home to about 2 million inhabitants. Its population 
density is among the highest in the world--just a

[[Page S2771]]

huge amount of people squeezed into a very small area. More than half 
of the population of Gaza, some 56 percent, live below the poverty 
line. Seventy percent of the population is receiving aid, according to 
estimates by the United Nations. Food rations constitute most of that 
aid. Unemployment in Gaza is around 45 percent; 48 percent of the 
population is under the age of 18; and 70 percent--let me repeat--70 
percent of the young people in Gaza are unemployed, with no hope for 
the future.
  And because of this war, the bombardment from Israeli planes, the 
situation has gotten even worse.
  Today's New York Times reports that the Israeli bombardment has--this 
is from the New York Times--``damaged 17 hospitals and clinics in 
Gaza.'' Got that? Seventeen hospitals and clinics have been damaged.
  The bombardment has ``wrecked its only coronavirus test laboratory, 
sent fetid wastewater into its streets and broken water pipes serving 
at least 800,000 people. Sewage systems inside Gaza have been 
destroyed. A desalination plant that helped provide fresh water to [a 
quarter of a million] people in the territory is offline. Dozens of 
schools have been damaged or closed, forcing some 600,000 students to 
miss classes. Some 72,000 Gazans have been forced to flee their 
homes.''
  That is from the New York Times this morning. Perhaps the situation 
has gotten even worse. I don't know. I want everybody to think for a 
moment what it means to be living in a very small territory, with 
dozens and dozens of planes attacking and bombing. What does it mean, 
in particular, to the children of Gaza?
  Jess Ghannam, a professor of psychiatry at the University of 
California San Francisco who specializes in the psychological effects 
of armed conflict on children, told USA Today:

       [What] children in Gaza are exposed to on a regular basis 
     exceeds anything, anything that any children anywhere else in 
     the world experience. There's basically no place to go for 
     these children. They are unable to escape.

  When you put people under this sort of continued, intense pressure, 
with no hope for a better future, you cannot be surprised when violence 
erupts. Indeed, 3 years ago, in May of 2018, I wrote a letter, with 12 
of my colleagues, urging the Trump administration to do more to 
alleviate the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. In that letter, we 
cited Israeli defense officials--Israeli defense officials--who were 
warning that if the crisis was not addressed, it could lead to yet 
another eruption of violence.
  Why didn't we take notice then? And when this latest war ends, will 
the United States once again turn away? Will we consign those children, 
once again, to the horrible conditions they are forced to live under 
today? And I would hope that my colleagues appreciate that we must not 
do that.
  Senator Scott's resolution says a lot about Hamas terrorists in Gaza. 
And let us be clear, Hamas is a terrorist organization. It is a corrupt 
organization, and it is a repressive organization. But here is the 
irony: It is resolutions like Senator Scott's that help Hamas. Hamas 
would be overjoyed if Senator Scott's resolution were to pass.
  Now, why is that? Let us understand that one of Hamas's goals is to 
show Palestinians that they represent the real resistance to the 
occupation. Senator Scott's resolution would help them do just that. By 
making this all about Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, Senator Scott is effectively 
echoing Hamas's own argument that Hamas is the true face of 
Palestinians' struggle, and I reject that, because, my friends, day 
after day, year after year, decade after decade, nonviolent Palestinian 
activists struggle against the daily violence and harassment of 
occupation--violence and harassment subsidized, by the way, with 
billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
  Let us be very clear. No one is arguing that Israel or any government 
does not have the right to self-defense and the responsibility to 
protect its people. We should understand that, while Hamas's firing 
rockets into Israeli communities is absolutely unacceptable, today's 
conflict did not begin with those rockets. It goes much, much deeper.
  For years we have seen a deepening Israeli occupation in the West 
Bank and East Jerusalem and a perpetual blockade on Gaza, all of which 
makes life increasingly unbearable for the Palestinian people. The 
truth is that these policies, like this current war, will continue to 
strengthen--to strengthen--extremists on both sides, including Hamas. 
If you want to strengthen Hamas, support this war.
  We, Congress, must understand that in more than a decade of his 
rightwing rule in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has cultivated an 
increasingly intolerant and authoritarian-type of racist nationalism. 
In his frantic effort to stay in power and avoid prosecution for 
corruption, Netanyahu has legitimized extremist forces, such as the 
Jewish Power party, by bringing them into the government.
  Moreover, we should understand that these dangerous trends are not 
unique to Israel. What was going on and what is going on in Israel, in 
my view, is a political tragedy, but it is part of a trend that is 
going on around the world, including here in the United States, where 
we are seeing the rise of authoritarian nationalist movements.
  These movements exploit ethnic and racial hatreds in order to build 
power for a corrupt few, rather than prosperity, justice, and peace for 
the many. For the last 4 years, these movements have had a friend in 
the Trump White House, and on January 6, those forces attacked this 
very Chamber.
  It is no accident that the only European Union country that did not 
join the nearly unanimous statement yesterday calling for a cease-fire 
was Hungary. Hungary did not join the rest of the European Union, and 
Hungary, of course, is led by the ethno-nationalist authoritarian 
Viktor Orban, a strong ally of both Netanyahu and Donald Trump.
  Now, some may choose to be on that side, but that is not the side I 
choose to be on. We must be on the side of those who want to build a 
society based on real security and political equality and based upon 
the principles of economic justice, racial justice, political justice, 
social justice, and environmental justice. I believe we must stand in 
solidarity with those Palestinians and Israelis working to build a 
future of equality and peaceful coexistence and not with the intolerant 
extremists on either side, who wish to destroy that future.
  In this moment of crisis, the United States should be urging an 
immediate cease-fire. My colleagues, I strongly believe that the United 
States has a major role to play in helping the world build a more 
peaceful and prosperous future, one in which human rights are upheld 
and the life of every human being is valued.
  We should be leading the world in combating the existential threat of 
climate change. We should be leading the world in making sure that 
every person on Earth, no matter what country he or she lives in, 
receives a vaccine to protect them from the COVID-19 virus, and, yes, 
we should lead the world in attempting to bring the Israeli people and 
the Palestinian people together.
  If the United States is going to be a credible voice on human rights 
on the global stage, we must recognize that Palestinian rights matter. 
Palestinian lives matter.
  Madam President, I object to the Scott resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, today is a sad day for the 
U.S. Senate, and one we will not forget. No one in this body supports 
the loss of innocent lives--no one. But let me be very clear about what 
we just witnessed. We just saw the Democratic Party completely abandon 
the sovereignty of Israel in support of a terrorist organization. The 
radical left is fully embracing the lie of false equivalence and 
refuses to plainly state: Israel has the right to defend itself, 
period.
  The resolution I offered today simply reaffirms our support of 
Israel, one of our greatest allies and our most important ally in the 
Middle East. And it condemns the escalating terrorist attacks against 
Israel.
  This isn't controversial. In fact, it is in line with everything 
America has stood for, for generations. It is actually in line with 
what my colleague just wrote in his op-ed for the New York Times. He 
said: ``No one is arguing that Israel, or any government, does not

[[Page S2772]]

have the right to self-defense or to protect its people.'' So why is he 
objecting to this today? Does he agree with the radical left that the 
United States shouldn't follow through with a critical arms sale to 
Israel as it continues to face attacks?
  It was not long ago that the Senate, including my colleague, stood 
with Israel on a bipartisan basis. In fact, in 2014, when Israel was 
again subject to a barrage of rockets targeting innocent Israelis, 
then-Majority Leader Reid offered a resolution supporting Israel's 
right to defend itself against Hamas.
  The 2014 resolution even acknowledges the simple truth that ``Hamas 
refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist.'' It also said: ``Hamas 
refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist.'' It says: ``Hamas uses 
rockets to indiscriminately target civilians in Israel.'' It says: 
``Hamas intentionally uses civilians as human shields.'' And it 
resolved to ``condemn Hamas's terrorist actions.''
  The Senate, including my colleague, unanimously supported then-
Majority Leader Reid's resolution supporting Israel's right to defend 
itself against Hamas and never said at that time that the resolution 
would embolden Hamas. Yet, today, something has changed for my 
colleague. You are seeing a growing and dangerous anti-Israel agenda 
permeate the Halls of Congress. Israel is a country surrounded by 
nations and terrorist groups that want it wiped off the face of the 
Earth. And as rockets rain down in Israel, my colleague refuses to 
stand with our ally.
  I will say it again. Today is a sad day for the U.S. Senate and one 
we will not forget. I will never accept a weakened position on Israel--
never. I will never stop fighting to support Israel and ensure the 
Biden administration upholds the longstanding and special partnership 
between the United States and Israel.
  I yield the floor


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 225

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 225, submitted 
earlier today; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble 
be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, reserving the right to object, 
my colleague is wrong for trying to boil this down in an attempt to 
distract from the reality we are seeing here today.
  The radical left is fully embracing the lie of false equivalence and 
refuses to plainly state: Israel has the right to defend itself, 
period.
  My colleague's resolution offers nothing supporting Israel's rightful 
efforts to stop this repeated cycle of violence. No one in this body 
welcomes the loss of innocent life--no one. But we cannot and I will 
not accept the left's ignorance of the evil and devastating role Iran 
plays in funding and supporting Hamas, the terrorist organization 
responsible for taking innocent lives.
  My colleague's resolution offers nothing to condemn Iran, the world's 
largest state sponsor of terrorism. My colleague's resolution offers 
nothing to condemn Hamas.
  Here is the difference between Israel and Hamas. Hamas uses its 
rockets to kill innocent Israelis. Israel uses its rockets to defend 
its people. It should not be difficult for the Senate to simply 
reaffirm our support of Israel, one of our greatest allies and our most 
important ally in the Middle East, and condemn the escalating terrorist 
attacks against Israel and its right to end the murder of its citizens.
  It wasn't difficult to get that done in 2014, when my colleague and 
every other Member of the Senate unanimously supported then-Majority 
Leader Reid's resolution supporting Israel's right to defend itself 
against Hamas. The same resolution also said: ``Hamas refuses to 
recognize Israel's right to exist.'' It says: ``Hamas uses rockets to 
indiscriminately target civilians in Israel.'' And it says: ``Hamas 
intentionally uses civilians as human shields.'' And it resolved to 
``condemn Hamas's terrorists actions.''
  So what does my colleague believe has changed about the facts on the 
ground since then? Here is what has changed. The Democrats now have a 
powerful and growing anti-Israel caucus in their party who defend 
terrorism against Israel. The Democratic Party has abandoned American 
values, and now they are abandoning American allies.
  And, as I said earlier, we can't allow this dangerous anti-Israel 
agenda to permeate the Halls of Congress. We can't allow a blatant 
blind eye to be turned to Israel.
  Israel is a country surrounded by nations and terrorist groups that 
want it wiped off the face of Earth. I will never accept a weakened 
position on Israel--never. And I am not going to stop fighting to 
support Israel and ensure the Biden administration upholds a 
longstanding and special partnership between the United States and 
Israel.
  Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the situation in the Middle East is a 
stark contrast from that of just 9 months ago.
  Last summer, the United States helped broker the Abraham Accords--a 
historic step in the relationship between Israel and the United Arab 
Emirates. The UAE became the third Arab country--the first Gulf State--
to recognize and normalize relations with Israel. Bahrain, Morocco, and 
Sudan would follow suit shortly thereafter. These agreements mark 
historic progress toward peace in decades and appear to open a new era 
of diplomacy in the Middle East.
  Today, though, the optimism we felt just a little less than a year 
ago has been replaced with more violence--more violence--and more 
destruction than we have seen in years and civilian casualties that 
continue to climb every day.
  Hamas has fired thousands of rockets into civilian populations in 
Israel. If not for the Iron Dome anti-rocket defense system and the 
U.S. support and funding that made it possible, the death toll would be 
significantly higher than it is.
  Just as any sovereign state under attack by terrorist forces would 
do, Israel has defended its citizens. Given the way Hamas uses 
Palestinian civilians as human shields--a war crime, by the way, for 
which Hamas alone is responsible--the counterstrikes have carried a 
human cost.
  As the conflict has intensified, some of our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have called into question Israel's right to defend 
itself. They have acted as though there is some moral equivalency 
between the terrorist acts of Hamas and Israel's right to defend 
itself. They have called on the President to speak out against the 
conduct of Israel but not Hamas. It is as though they think that Israel 
is somehow a terrorist group, not the other way around.
  As I said, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets specifically 
headed toward civilian targets in Israel. The moral equivalency 
argument between Hamas's attack and Israel's response is clearly 
divorced from any reality.
  Let's be clear, though. This conflict is not a welcome development 
for anyone. The Israeli and the Palestinian people are bearing the cost 
of a conflict that they had no hand in creating.
  It is important to remember that two things can be true. First, 
Israel has a right to defend itself. If Hamas or any other terrorist 
group or state launches an attack on Israel, its government has both 
the right and the responsibility to respond and protect its citizens. 
Secondly, the number of civilian casualties on both sides, particularly 
the number of children, is heartbreaking. Both of those things are 
true.
  The violence and destruction we are seeing is devastating, made even 
more upsetting by the progress we appeared to have made just last year. 
But this is not a conflict between two governments; this is a sovereign 
state defending itself against a terrorist attack.
  I am afraid that message has been lost on President Biden. When asked 
about the conflict earlier this week, White House Press Secretary Jen 
Psaki said the administration is using ``quiet and intensive 
diplomacy''--``quiet and intensive diplomacy'' while the rockets are 
raining down on civilian populations in Israel.
  The only democracy in the Middle East is being attacked by a 
terrorist

[[Page S2773]]

organization, and the diplomatic strategy of the leader of the free 
world includes remaining quiet. I am reminded of President Obama's 
statement--bizarre now, in retrospect--talking about ``leading from 
behind,'' an oxymoronic doctrine which gave way to disastrous, albeit 
predictable, consequences in Libya. We continued to see the dire cost 
of poor American leadership in other foreign countries. In Yemen, in 
Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine, leading from behind has done nothing but harm 
the cause of peace.
  I hope this serves as a wake-up call for President Biden of the 
dangers of a similar quest. ``Quiet and intensive diplomacy'' is not 
the appropriate course when one of our closest allies in the world is 
being attacked by an internationally recognized terrorist organization.
  But we can't lose sight of the country behind the curtain, the silent 
financier of this conflict, which is Iran, the No. 1 state sponsor of 
international terrorism, because this is, in fact, a proxy war waged 
against the Jewish State.
  Iran is a prolific state sponsor of terrorism and has felt growing 
pressure from the United States and its allies in recent years. The 
Trump administration withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and placed 
sanctions on hundreds of businesses and individuals who have helped 
finance Iran's illicit activities. And there is no question that Iran 
stood to lose the most from the peace agreements brokered last year. 
The threat of Iran was largely responsible for these countries to come 
together and to lay down their arms and to work together.
  The Biden administration has made clear it intends to recklessly 
revive the Iran deal, while loosening the sanctions that would provide 
the United States leverage to negotiate better terms. These important 
sanctions target Iran's support for terrorist groups like Hamas, as 
well as its ballistic missile development and human rights violations.
  Removing them now, essentially unilaterally, is a grave mistake. 
Simply by signaling this intent, President Biden has already emboldened 
and encouraged Iran's malign activities through its proxies--Hamas, 
Hezbollah, and others.
  This current loss of life and destruction demonstrate that Iran is 
capable of wielding deadly force, even with lean resources. Fewer 
sanctions, though, have meant less cash flowing to their terrorist 
proxies.
  This week, we are reminded of the saying that has been around for 
years: ``If Hamas laid down its weapons today, there would be no more 
violence. If Israel laid down its weapons, there would be no more 
Israel.''
  America must remain steadfast in our commitment to support Israel, as 
well as our responsibility to counter threats posed by terrorist 
organizations like Hamas and malign nation state actors like Iran.
  I hope for a day in the future when the Middle East can be a place of 
peace, stability, and democracy, but we simply will not reach that 
point without a strong and secure Israel.
  I stand in full support of Israel and will continue to fight for a 
strong U.S.-Israel relationship. The United States does not bow down to 
terrorist organizations, and we will not allow our allies to be bullied 
and beaten by Hamas or any other terrorist group.
  (Mr. OSSOFF assumed the Chair.


                                S. 1260

  Mr. President, on one final matter, we know the Endless Frontier 
legislation, which is on the floor today, is part of our response to 
the competition caused by an increasingly belligerent and aggressive 
China, and I am glad the Senate has taken up consideration of this 
legislation.
  In coming days, I expect both sides to offer amendments to strengthen 
this legislation and to ensure that it addresses a broad range of 
strategic threats. As Leader McConnell has said, a robust amendment 
process is critical to the success of this legislation.
  One of the most pressing needs, though, is to bolster our domestic 
semiconductor manufacturing, which will be addressed and is addressed 
by the underlying bill. We rely on these microelectronic circuits, or 
semiconductors, for everything from our telephones that we have in our 
pockets to the cars in our driveways, to the missile defense systems 
that are right now knocking down Hamas rockets raining down over 
Israel.
  Over the past couple of decades, as our need for semiconductors has 
increased, as we have become more technologically centric, so has our 
dependence on the countries that produce those semiconductors.
  Here is a graphic reminder of our dependency on foreign supply chains 
in order to supply these critical semiconductors that are so important 
to our economy and to our national security. As you can see, 63 percent 
of the global market supply of semiconductors comes from Taiwan, 18 
percent comes from South Korea, 6 percent from China, but nearly 90 
percent of chips are sourced from Southeast Asia.
  As we learned in the pandemic called COVID-19, vulnerable supply 
chains are something we need to be aware of and to fight against.
  I am reminded of what President Jimmy Carter said in 1980 in the 
State of the Union Message when he spoke about the Persian Gulf and 
Soviet threats to the movement of essential energy supplies through the 
Strait of Hormuz. President Carter at that time articulated the Carter 
doctrine, as it came to be known. He said:

       An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the 
     Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the 
     vital interests of the United States of America.

  In other words, it would be an act of war because of the dramatic 
dependence that the United States had at that time on oil flowing 
through the Strait of Hormuz.
  But I think you could consider today that semiconductors are the new 
oil. Instead of the Strait of Hormuz, we are now dependent on a supply 
chain from parts of the world we can no longer depend upon.
  Just as a blockade would have left the world with devastating 
consequences, a blockade of the semiconductor supply chain would have 
far-reaching, negative consequences to our national security and 
economy. In fact, we are getting a glimpse of what that might look like 
right now.
  There is a global semiconductor shortage that is largely related to 
COVID-19 and has led to far-reaching consequences across virtually 
every industry. In Texas a couple of weeks ago, I met with executives 
from companies across the range of industries that have been impacted 
by the shortage of semiconductors, including automotive, consumer 
electronics, and defense.
  So we need a strong response to restore domestic semiconductor 
manufacturing, which is why last year, Senator Warner, the Senator from 
Virginia, and I introduced what we call the CHIPS for America Act. 
Thanks to the leadership of then-Chairman Jim Inhofe on the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, that became law, and it will help restore 
American semiconductor manufacturing by creating a Federal incentive to 
encourage chip manufacturing right here in the U.S.A.
  But the thing we couldn't do then, even though the amendment we 
introduced passed 96 to 4, to authorize this Federal incentive program, 
the one thing that was missing was the money and the finances in order 
to make this happen.
  My preference is always to fund things through the regular order 
whenever possible. We simply cannot get into the habit of cutting the 
Appropriations Committee out of the appropriations process. But there 
is clearly broad support for the CHIPS for America Act. As I said, 96 
Senators voted to include it in the Defense Authorization Act.
  I am committed to securing funding for the program created by the 
bill, and there have been many conversations about the alternatives 
available to us on how to do so.
  Originally, we introduced a tax credit provision, but unfortunately 
that did not seem to gain the traction that we needed. When we tried to 
get the funding in December, we came up emptyhanded.
  But today I am glad to say there is a significant emergency 
appropriation included in the underlying bill. But unfortunately, 
politics being what it is and Washington being a political city, there 
are unnecessary and purely political provisions related to the payment 
of prevailing wages, which U.S. semiconductor manufacturing companies 
already pay their employees, and they

[[Page S2774]]

have created a problem for funding this noncontroversial measure to 
bring chip production back to American soil.
  I have reached out to our friends across the aisle to try to work in 
good faith to reach a compromise that allows this funding to pass with 
a broad bipartisan majority. There is a clear and urgent need to 
bolster domestic semiconductor manufacturing and to secure one of our 
most, if not the most, critical supply chains.
  Here is what a recent support of the National Security Commission on 
Artificial Intelligence said:

       [T]he United States is almost entirely reliant on foreign 
     sources for production of cutting-edge semiconductors 
     critical for defense systems and industry more broadly, 
     leaving the U.S. supply chain vulnerable to disruption by 
     foreign government action or natural disaster.

  It is clear that other countries--notably China--are steadily 
investing in their own semiconductor manufacturing. Today, as I speak, 
China is building 17 fabs, or manufacturing facilities, in the People's 
Republic of China.
  The United States needs to compete, and in order to do so, we need to 
pass this essential funding. We should not be bogged down by bipartisan 
or political points to be scored when, in fact, they really don't make 
any difference to the semiconductor industry because they already pay 
high wages. The only reason to do this is to try to advance the 
interests of organized labor and impose additional costs on the 
construction of these advanced fabrication facilities.

  The fact is, this actually expands the role of prevailing wage 
requirements because this is essentially private construction, funded 
in part--in a modest part--by U.S. Federal tax dollars. So now is not 
the time to let politics get in the way of our progress. It is just 
simply too important to our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, before the Senator from Texas leaves the 
floor, I want to acknowledge that in Oklahoma, last Sunday, I was with 
a group of people, and, independent of each other, they asked the same 
question: Where is America, and what is happening over there right now? 
Our best friend and most loyal ally in that part of the world, Israel, 
is being hit by terrorists, and we are sitting back and not doing 
anything. It is just not thinkable that that could happen.
  I think one of the most meaningful things that I had not heard 
before, stated this way, that the Senator from Texas stated was, if 
Hamas were to stop the attacks on Israel, Israel would do nothing, but 
if Israel were to stop responding, there would be no Israel left.
  That is the situation we have there. It is something that is not 
understandable. It is something that we are going to do everything we 
can to reverse.
  That is not why I am here on the floor, but I just wanted to mention 
that


                                S. 1260

  Mr. President, on this legislation that we are working on right now, 
we have an amendment. Senator Shelby and I, jointly, have an amendment.
  Now, we did this initially because I chaired the Senate Armed 
Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee, and it is an 
agreement that we had 10 years ago. We agreed on parity, that anything 
that we do that is going to be defense-related is going to be equaled 
by nondefense.
  Now, that has been our pattern, Democrats and Republicans, for 10 
years, but now the situation has changed, the way it is structured now 
in this bill, so that there is nothing in there for defense.
  Here we are in the most threatened position we have ever been in with 
China. Yet the China bill is doing all these things with China, but it 
is not doing anything in terms of the military that we are suffering 
under right now.
  We have to remember--a lot of people have forgotten this--that two 
administrations ago, in the Obama administration, we had a situation 
where, during the last 5 years--that would have been from 2010 to 
2015--the President at that time, President Obama, had reduced the 
budget for defense by 25 percent. During the same timeframe, China had 
increased theirs by 83 percent.
  Now, just look at that. That is what was happening. That was back in 
2015, and now the situation is really getting worse because, since that 
time, China has increased its capabilities in hypersonics and other 
areas, so that they are actually ahead of us in many areas.
  So what we want to do is just to be sure that, whatever product we 
come out with, we end up having parity between defense spending and 
nondefense spending. It is something we have been doing for a long 
period of time.
  So the threat has not improved over the last 3 years but has only 
gotten worse. I think that any bill that really seeks to address the 
threat from China--the whole threat from China--must also address 
China's very real military and its broader military-civil fusion that 
is taking place right now. That is why any response can't separate out 
military and economic competition. It must be whole of government. And 
this bill is only focused on economic competition, not military.
  Our amendment, Shelby's amendment and mine, will make sure that any 
increase in nondefense, discretionary spending will be matched by the 
same level of increase to the defense spending. Now, this is not 
something that is just Republican. This is something that was agreed 
upon some 10 years ago by Democrats and Republicans. Yet that is not 
what we are looking at with this. So this would merely be going back 
and agreeing with what we all agreed to, Democrats and Republicans.
  In fact, in this document right here--we often refer to this 
document. This is the NDAA document that was put together, to remind my 
fellow Members here, this was six Democrats and six Republicans, all 
recognized in their skills in military planning, coming up with this 
document. This was 2018. Yet, today, it is just as applicable as it was 
back then. And that is what they talk about--what is necessary this 
year to spend on military to try to keep some type of a parity with 
China.
  Now, this has to be our top priority. Our security underwrites 
everything else we do as a nation. That is why America is viewed as the 
leader of the free world. It can't be either one or the other. It has 
got to be both.
  The Chinese are competing against us in every area, and this bill 
currently does nothing to bolster our national defense to confront this 
threat or to leverage our military and intelligence community's 
significant research and development expertise in this area. It doesn't 
establish the sort of cooperation between our defense and commercial 
sectors on technology and technological development that we need.
  China isn't just investing in technology, manufacturing, and 
research; they are also investing in military. They are putting more 
money into modernizing their military than ever before. China is on a 
modernization sprint. They have been channeling money into building 
weapons that we don't even have yet, like hypersonics.
  I was embarrassed about a year ago when China came out and in China, 
in their parade, they were displaying hypersonics, things we don't even 
have yet. That didn't used to be that way. It used to be, following the 
Second World War, that we always kept ahead at that time. We recognized 
that there was a risk there and that the risk was something we had to 
meet.
  So they are on track to dominate in new capabilities like artificial 
intelligence and hypersonics and other areas. So, meanwhile, we are 
crawling forward because we aren't giving our military the resources 
they need to stay competitive with China.
  We know what that looks like. It is at least 3 to 5 percent in real 
growth. Now, that is actually what is in this document right now. They 
have updated this to show that right now we should, in order to stay 
even with China, be upgrading somewhere between 3 and 5 percent, this 
year, in this budget. And we are reducing the amount. It doesn't even 
meet the cost of living.
  So in the military advantage--that is what we use to deter China from 
moving from economic aggression to military aggression--we have already 
lost our edge in some areas. So, to maintain our military advantage, it 
is going to take investment, but President Biden is not willing to make 
the investment

[[Page S2775]]

we need. He is proposing to cut our defense budget, and that doesn't 
even keep pace with inflation.
  So, meanwhile, he is proposing to increase all other spending almost 
20 percent, and in this bill here it spends as much on microchips for 
the auto industry as it does on microelectronics for our national 
defense. Can you believe that?
  If we don't invest in our military deterrent, it is hard to see how 
any of our other efforts--diplomacy, innovation, economic growth--will 
succeed either.
  So we will continue to work in a bipartisan fashion to address these 
needs. I really believe that this should be the first amendment to come 
up. I don't know. I am not in charge of that. But it should be. It is 
one that should be easy to pass because it was agreed to 10 years ago--
that we didn't need to be in a position where we are not keeping up 
with China.
  So our amendment does one simple thing. It is parity. It says any 
change that you make in the nondefense spending you have to have in 
defense spending at the same time. I believe that should happen. It 
should take place. I am hoping that we will have an opportunity to vote 
on that tomorrow.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). The Senator from Washington.


                           Order of Business

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate resumes consideration of S. 1260 tomorrow, the following 
amendments be called up and reported by number: Inhofe-Shelby 1523 and 
Johnson 1518; further, at 12 noon tomorrow, the Senate vote in relation 
to the Inhofe amendment and at 1:30 p.m. in relation to the Johnson 
amendment, with no amendments in order to these amendments prior to a 
vote in relation to the amendment, with 60 affirmative votes required 
for adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, just for the notice of our colleagues, I 
should say we are still trying to work out other amendments, including 
the Coons amendment and others, so we will be working on that this 
evening.

                          ____________________