[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.
____________________