[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 25, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3394-S3401]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Nomination of Kristen M. Clarke
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, today the Senate will vote on Kristen
Clarke's nomination to head the Department of Justice's Civil Rights
Division--one of the most powerful positions at the Department of
Justice. I will, of course, oppose her nomination.
We get a lot of partisan nominees around here. So that is not very
surprising. But Ms. Clarke isn't just partisan. She is extremely
partisan. She called Senator Murkowski ``shameful.'' She accused
Senator Manchin of being disingenuous. And she casually slandered 200--
200--sitting, Senate-confirmed judges as ``white male extremists.'' If
confirmed for this position, she will be entrusted with representing
the U.S. Government in front of those very judges--not exactly a
credible advocate for our people, if you ask me.
Ms. Clarke's radicalism doesn't stop with ad hominem insults. It
thoroughly infects her professional judgment as well. Ms. Clarke has
consistently demonstrated that she is more interested in attacking
police and calling everybody a racist than finding the facts or
reviewing the evidence.
When it comes to racially incendiary cases, she proudly fans the
flames of division. Last year, she repeatedly--repeatedly--spread the
falsehood that Jacob Blake, who had a knife and was actively resisting
arrest, was, in fact, ``unarmed'' when he was shot by the police. In
part because of falsehoods like that one, riots engulfed the city of
Kenosha, WI.
She also claimed that Officer Darren Wilson, who shot and killed
Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, was only exonerated ``based on racism.''
When I asked Ms. Clarke if she had reconsidered that unsubstantiated
opinion, she pretended not to know enough to answer the question, at
first, which is remarkable given that the shooting in Ferguson is one
of the most publicized and explosive cases in recent years; also
remarkable because she apparently knew enough to tar a grand jury of
normal American citizens as yes, once again, racist, but not enough to
answer simple questions.
Ms. Clarke's opinion on the Ferguson case sets her apart from other
staunch liberals like Vanita Gupta and Eric Holder. Both have
acknowledged that Officer Wilson was justified in the use of force,
echoing the Obama Department of Justice, which came to the very same
conclusion. In defiance of all evidence, in spite of her good friend
Ms. Gupta's views, Ms. Clarke still dissents from this conclusion. So I
cannot believe it--I am genuinely astonished--but Joe Biden has somehow
found a nominee more radical than Vanita Gupta. That is an impressive
accomplishment, one that should give Senators who supported Ms. Gupta
more than ample ground to oppose Ms. Clarke
Moreover, Ms. Clarke is a firm and, until very recently, a vocal
supporter of defunding the police. Ms. Clarke wrote an article less
than a year ago--not some college paper. Less than a year ago, Ms.
Clarke wrote an article with ``Defund the Police'' in the title. She
stated: ``Must invest less in police'' three times in the text of that
article. She also wrote: ``I advocate for defunding policing
operations.''
[[Page S3395]]
I don't know. Call me naive. Call me simple. When you write an
article entitled ``Defund the Police'' and when you say, ``[W]e must
invest less in the police'' and ``I advocate for defunding policing
options,'' it sounds to me like you support defunding the police. But,
apparently, I am wrong about that because when she was asked about this
at her hearing, Ms. Clarke denied--amazingly, denied--that she
supported defunding the police. She claimed that when she wrote that
``we should defund the police,'' she actually meant that we should not
defund the police. Astoundingly, she blamed an editor for coming up
with the title to her piece but conveniently can't recall what an
alternative title she suggested would have been or whether she objected
to a title that was apparently the exact opposite of what she intended.
Now, maybe this shouldn't be surprising. After all, her article title
was ``I prosecuted police killings. Defund the Police--but be
Strategic.'' Apparently, the strategy is lying, because that is what we
saw at our committee.
We said: Ms. Clarke, the title of your article is ``Defund the
Police.''
Like, I didn't choose the title.
Ms. Clarke, you wrote three times in the story ``defund the police.''
She is like: I don't support defunding the police.
But, Ms. Clarke, you wrote here, as well, that we should invest less
in the police.
She is like: No, I don't think we should invest less; we should
invest more.
The old argument: It is not my dog. It didn't bite you. You kicked
him first.
Regardless of what she and her defenders might say, one thing is
crystal clear: A vote for Kristen Clarke is a vote to defund the
police.
Finally, not surprisingly, we come to Ms. Clarke's consistent
dishonesty, duplicity, and evasion throughout her hearing and written
statements. In one particularly bizarre incident, Ms. Clarke claimed in
her hearing that she was proud to have the endorsement of the National
Association of Police Organizations, a group which represents nearly a
quarter million law enforcement officers.
Now that would be big news, a huge endorsement. So I asked my staff
to get me a copy of the endorsement letter. It turns out they couldn't
because it doesn't exist.
Now, that is not good, but people misspeak all the time, especially
when under pressure. So I wanted to give Ms. Clarke a chance to correct
the record. I asked for clarity in a written question. Thankfully, Ms.
Clarke responded that she had misstated the facts.
OK. That is fine, I accept that explanation. Again, people misspeak.
No one is perfect. Yet imagine my surprise when I received an answer to
another written question that claimed almost verbatim the same thing
she had said in her hearing--that she was endorsed by this
organization.
She similarly responded to at least three other Senators that she was
endorsed by this organization, even after admitting just a few pages
earlier in her written answers that she had misstated that she had such
an endorsement. At that point, that is not a simple mistake. It is not
misspeaking. It is not a fib. It is totally and completely untrue in
written testimony to the U.S. Congress. Yet she has not apologized. She
has not acknowledged this blatant lie.
This episode sadly proves that she lacks the transparency and honesty
to be trusted in such an important position.
You know, my Democratic colleagues have, for the last 4 years,
endlessly lectured about the need for the Department of Justice to be
free from partisan politics and for it to be run by serious, competent
individuals. They seems to have a slightly different view today. From
her extremism to her lack of candor, Ms. Clarke is unfit to lead any
organization in the Department of Justice--indeed, simply to serve the
Department of Justice. If the Democratic Senators vote to confirm Ms.
Clarke, they will be responsible for every battle she wages in Joe
Biden's war on the police, and I will make sure that their voters know
about it
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15
minutes before the rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it was 1 year ago today. It was a street
corner in the city of Minneapolis, the corner of 38th and Chicago
Avenue. For 9 minutes and 29 seconds, Derek Chauvin, a Minneapolis
policeman, knelt on George Floyd's neck. As he knelt on his neck, he
stared into a camera with a look that haunts me to this day. Those 9
minutes and 29 seconds took George Floyd's life and changed America's
national conversation about law enforcement. Those 9 minutes and 29
seconds sparked a global movement and compelled us to bear witness to
the reality of racial injustice in our country.
In this Senate we are in a privileged position to face that reality
and to continue America's long, sometimes bitter march toward equal
justice under the law. That is why I rise today in support of Kristen
Clarke's nomination to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil
Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
It is worth noting the history of this position. The Civil Rights
Division is one of the most important components of the Justice
Department. The Attorney General's Office has existed since 1789. The
Justice Department itself was not created until after our Civil War.
During the days of Reconstruction, after that war, our Nation
resolved to take new steps to form a more perfect Union through the
13th Amendment's abolishing slavery, the 14th Amendment's guarantee of
due process and equal protection, and the 15th Amendment's protection
of all citizens' fundamental right to vote.
The Department of Justice was created after the passage of those
amendments and entrusted with the responsibility to defend the rights
of Americans, particularly the newly emancipated, formerly enslaved
Americans.
Given the Department's immediate imperative to protect and preserve
civil rights, President Ulysses S. Grant appointed Amos Akerman to be
the first Attorney General to lead this new Department. Why? He had
extensive experience in prosecuting voter intimidation as the U.S.
attorney in the State of Georgia.
More than 150 years later, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice
Department now is entrusted with that constitutional responsibility.
The Division enforces Federal statutes prohibiting discrimination based
on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability,
religion, national origin, and citizenship status.
And just as President Grant appointed a legal expert with a breadth
of experience to lead the newly formed Justice Department in 1870,
today, President Joe Biden has chosen Kristen Clarke to take up the
mantle as the head of the Civil Rights Division. With her breadth of
experience defending the civil rights of all Americans, Kristen Clarke
is singularly qualified to lead this Division, particularly at this
moment in history.
Kristen Clarke will be the first Senate confirmed woman of color to
do so--the first.
When I listen to the caricatures that are portrayed on the floor of
the Senate about this woman, I find it hard to believe they are talking
about the Kristen Clarke that we met in open Senate hearings.
We know what happened to the Civil Rights Division under President
Trump. Under President Trump and Attorneys General Sessions and Barr,
the Civil Rights Division was devastated. Over the past 4 years, the
Division rescinded guidance protecting transgender students, prohibited
the use of consent decrees for local police departments that had
engaged in systemic misconduct, and abandoned the prior legal positions
supporting Americans' fundamental right to vote.
I believe America needs a Civil Rights Division that vigorously
defends the civil rights of all Americans. Kristen Clarke is the legal
expert we need to restore and reinvigorate the Civil Rights Division.
You wouldn't know it from the characterizations on the other side
about her experience, but, notably, she is a veteran of two of its
sections. She began her legal career defending voting rights in the
Voting Section and later prosecuted hate crimes in the Division's
Criminal Section. She personally
[[Page S3396]]
understands the key role the Division's line attorneys play in
protecting civil rights.
Since leaving the Civil Rights Division, Ms. Clarke has continued
defending civil rights in State government and national civil rights
organizations. First, Ms. Clarke co-led the NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund's voting rights work, litigating voting rights cases
under the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act.
Then she served as a civil rights official for the New York State
Attorney General's Office, where she played a key role in launching a
religious rights initiative to address faith-based discrimination.
When you listen to those assignments and the fact that this woman was
chosen to head these divisions, how can it possibly square with some of
the caricatures that have been drawn on the floor today about who she
is?
Most recently, Ms. Clarke was chosen to lead the Lawyers' Committee
for Civil Rights Under Law. Those of us who follow this closely know it
is one of the most preeminent civil rights groups in America. During
her tenure, the Lawyers' Committee has taken on a huge caseload and
doubled in size to address the most pressing civil rights issues of our
time, including hate crimes.
Here is the part that I want to make a special emphasis on. Both
Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke have extensive endorsements from law
enforcement organizations. Yet, when they were characterized on the
floor of the Senate by their critics, they were characterized as haters
of police and law enforcement. It just mystifies me how Senators can
come to the floor knowing these organizations and believe that these
two women have hoodwinked them into believing that they support law
enforcement. The women and men in law enforcement aren't pushed around
and aren't easily deceived. They have endorsed these two women, and
today we address Kristen Clarke's nomination because of the records
they have written, not over a period of days or weeks or months but
years and in some cases decades, that they have written.
Consider this statement from Sheriff David Mahoney from Dane County,
WI, recently stepped down from the National Sheriffs' Association.
Let me quickly add, the National Sheriffs' Association is a powerful
organization, and it is one that isn't pushed around by any
politicians.
Sheriff Mahoney wrote--and I want to quote his words after some of
the outrageous charges that have been made against Ms. Clarke this
afternoon. Sheriff Mahoney wrote: ``Building trust between law
enforcement and communities is essential for law enforcement to
effectively serve all members of our community. It is with this in mind
that I strongly support Kristen Clarke. Ms. Clarke has built trust in
every stage of her career.''
Does that sound like someone who wants to defund the police? Do you
think that this Sheriff Mahoney from Dane County in Wisconsin would say
that about someone who wants to defund police?
He went on to say: ``When she was a federal prosecutor as a young
attorney, she gained the trust of federal agents and domestic violence
survivors and crime victims. When she was the Chief of the Civil Rights
Bureau in the New York State Attorney General's office, she built trust
among New Yorkers to protect their rights, and with the Lawyers'
Committee, she gained the trust of hate crimes victims and survivors.''
She has so many endorsements from law enforcement groups and from
prosecutors. I am not going to read them all into the Record.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have letters of support
for Ms. Clarke printed in the Record
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Organization of
Black Law Enforcement Executives, January 30, 2021.
Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitchell McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Schumer, Minority Leader McConnell,
Chairman Durbin, and Ranking Member Grassley: The National
Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE)
formally acknowledges the work and commitment to service that
has been exhibited by Ms. Kristen Clarke. She is a long-time
partner of NOBLE and the recipient of our 2016 Civil Rights
Justice by Action Award.
Ms. Clarke has displayed the qualities of leadership,
empathy, excellence, and persistence in supporting and
defending the U.S. Constitution while ensuring equal
protection and justice for all Americans. This has been
exhibited countless times in roles such as President of the
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Manager of
the Civil Rights Bureau of the New York Department of Law.
It is NOBLE's belief that Ms. Clarke will help to ensure
the delivery of its mission which is to ensure equity in the
administration of justice in the provision of public service
to all communities, and to serve as the conscience of law
enforcement by being committed to Justice by Action.
In closing, this correspondence acts as a formal
endorsement of Ms. Kristen Clarke as the next Head of the
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.
Sincerely,
Dwayne A. Crawford,
Executive Director.
____
Major Cities Chiefs Association,
February 3, 2021.
Hon. Lindsey Graham,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein: The
Major Cities Chiefs Association, a professional organization
of police executives representing the largest cities in the
United States and Canada, is proud to endorse President
Biden's nominations of Lisa Monaco to serve as Deputy
Attorney General, Vanita Gupta to serve as Associate Attorney
General, and Kristen Clarke to serve as Assistant Attorney
General for Civil Rights.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has been tasked with
addressing a complex set of issues, including police reform,
criminal justice reform, violent crime, and domestic
extremism. The team President Biden has nominated is
immensely qualified for this responsibility. The nominees
have decades of experience serving in senior leadership roles
within DOJ, other elements of the justice system, the private
sector, civil rights and civil liberties organizations, and
other key stakeholder groups. This experience will be
invaluable as they work to tackle the many challenges facing
DOJ.
In conversations with MCCA leadership, the nominees
listened intently to our concerns and expressed a desire to
collaborate closely with the MCCA. They indicated that open
lines of communication and MCCA input are critical in
addressing shared priorities such as advancing constitutional
policing, improving officer health and wellness, and
combatting the rise in violent crime currently occurring
across the country.
President Biden's DOJ nominees also made it clear that they
neither support defunding the police nor believe that doing
so will bring about the change our communities are calling
for. They pledged to work closely with the MCCA to support
and amplify the efforts already underway by many local law
enforcement agencies to develop and implement policies and
practices that are fair, equitable, transparent, and build
trust and legitimacy with all members of the community.
The MCCA believes these nominees will be effective leaders
and valuable partners for local law enforcement agencies. On
behalf of the MCCA membership, I respectfully request the
Committee act swiftly and support the nominations of Ms.
Monaco, Ms. Gupta, and Ms. Clarke.
Sincerely,
Art Acevedo,
Chief, Houston Police Department,
President, Major Cities Chiefs Association.
____
Hispanic American Police
Command Officers Association,
February 6, 2021.
Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Schumer, Minority Leader McConnell,
Chairman Durbin, and Ranking Member Grassley: The Hispanic
American Police Command Officers Association (HAPCOA) wishes
to support and recommend the nomination of Ms. Kristin
[[Page S3397]]
Clarke to the position of Head of the US Department of
Justice Civil Rights Division.
HAPCOA is the oldest and largest association of Hispanic
American command officers from law enforcement and criminal
justice agencies at the municipal, county, state, school,
university and federal levels.
HAPCOA's mission is to ``empower the future of law
enforcement'' by assisting law enforcement, criminal justice
and community organizations nationwide in their efforts to
recruit, train, mentor and promote qualified Hispanic
American men and women committed to a career in the criminal
justice arena and to the communities in which they serve and
protect.
HAPCOA acknowledges the work ethic and commitment of Ms.
Clarke and believe that she will be an effective leader as
the next Head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division.
Sincerely,
Anthony Chapa,
Executive Director
____
Dane County Sheriff's Office,
April 29, 2021.
Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Schumer, Minority Leader McConnell,
Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Grassley: I write to
express my strong support for Kristen Clarke, the President's
nominee to serve as Assistant Attorney General of the Civil
Rights Division.
I serve as the Sheriff in Dane County, Wisconsin. I was
first elected to this position in 2006 and have served four
terms in office, and have over 40 years of service in law
enforcement. Our office serves the city of Madison, the
capital of Wisconsin, and its surrounding cities and towns. I
also serve as President of the National Sheriffs'
Association, an organization I hold in very high regard.
Building trust between law enforcement and communities is
essential for law enforcement to effectively serve all
members of our community. This overarching value is a bedrock
principle that has guided my stewardship of the Sheriff's
office, and is shared by law enforcement leaders all across
the country. This bedrock value is also important to federal
law enforcement leaders, who partner with state and local law
enforcement to promote public safety and build public trust.
It is with this in mind that I strongly support Kristen
Clarke, the President's Civil Rights Division nominee. Ms.
Clarke has built trust at every stage of her career. When she
was a federal prosecutor as a young attorney, she gained the
trust of federal agents and domestic violence survivors and
crime victims. When she was the Chief of the Civil Rights
Bureau in the New York State Attorney General's office, she
built trust among New Yorkers to protect their rights to
practice their faiths, to allow for language access, and to
protect against discrimination at work. When Ms. Clarke left
government service to lead the non-profit Lawyers' Committee
of Civil Rights Under Law, Ms. Clarke gained the trust of
hate crimes victims and survivors, to ensure that they could
obtain justice against their perpetrators.
As a tireless advocate for those who have been targeted by
inequality, hate, and discrimination, Ms. Clarke is exactly
the type of person who should be charged with guarding and
enforcing this country's core federal civil rights laws. She
is an exemplary lawyer and leader who possesses the
character, qualifications, and commitment to lead the Civil
Rights Division.
I urge you and your colleagues to support Ms. Clarke's
nomination.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
David J. Mahoney,
Sheriff, Dane County, Wisconsin.
Mr. DURBIN. The point I am trying to make is this: At this moment in
history, filling this Division, the Civil Rights Division, on the
anniversary of George Floyd's murder on the streets of Minneapolis, we
are choosing the first woman of color in the history of the United
States to head this Division. It is a historic choice. It shouldn't be
trivialized by those who want to paint a caricature of this woman not
even close to the truth. It shouldn't be trivialized by ignoring the
many endorsements she rightfully received because of her good life's
work, having spent her entire career defending the civil rights of all
Americans.
Ms. Clarke is the right person for the job. President Joseph Biden
believes that. The Attorney General believes it, and I believe it as
well. At a time when we have seen an appalling rise in hate crimes, we
need someone with her experience to head this Division.
I urge my colleagues to take note of the continued need for the Civil
Rights Division to do its important work 150 years after its creation.
Given that need and Ms. Clarke's breadth and depth of experience, I
urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of her nomination.
I yield the floor.
Vote on Clarke Nomination
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time
has expired.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Clarke
nomination?
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. 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 Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:
Rollcall Vote No. 203 Ex.]
YEAS--51
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--48
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING--1
Kennedy
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the President
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Coronavirus
Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, I am here today to talk about the
origins of the COVID-19 virus. I want to stop and thank the scientists
and journalists who risked and in some instances gave their lives to
get the genetic sequence of the virus and some hints of its origin out
to the rest of the world to give us a fighting chance.
I also want to thank the NIH and Dr. Francis Collins, whose team was
able to stabilize the virus within a matter of weeks and share that
technology with the world. This helped to quickly launch the success of
Operation Warp Speed, as well as other research for testing, anti-
virals, and vaccines.
But now here we are 16 months into the most catastrophic health
disaster of our lifetime, and we still have more questions than
answers. At least 3 million lives have been claimed by the virus, and
we still don't know its origin. More specifically, we don't know its
geographical or biological origin. The world deserves to know and needs
to know where and how it started. Was it naturally occurring, or was it
made in a lab?
I am here today to tell you, the preponderance of evidence suggests
that this virus leaked from a lab in Wuhan. But first let's look at the
mounting evidence suggesting that COVID-19 is truly a supervirus, the
product of lab manipulations, including viral gain of function. In
order to do this, we need to look at the world history of two similar
events and the great work of scientists surrounding the containment of
SARS in 2002 and MERS in 2012.
For SARS, it took 4 months to find an intermediate host, a civet, a
raccoon-looking mammal. Yes, it only took 4 months to prove that the
SARS virus went from a bat to a civet to a human. Significantly,
scientists found 24 viral ancestors to SARS, as the virus
[[Page S3398]]
spontaneously mutated from a virus that would not easily attach to
human cells into a more lethal virus.
For MERS, it only took 9 months to find the virus occurring naturally
in bats, and the intermediate host was camels.
Yet, with COVID-19, here we are some 16 months later, and we have no
intermediate host and no COVID-19 found in a live bat. The Chinese tell
us they tested over 80,000 viral sequences and have come up empty.
Coincidence?
No precursors, no grandfather or great-grandfathers, nothing close to
resembling COVID-19 has been found in nature. As a matter of fact, the
closest virus we know of to COVID-19 is RaTG13, which has called the
Wuhan Institute of Virology home for several years. This virus was
supposedly from bats in Yunnan and transported by scientists to the
Wuhan viral lab, but of course the Chinese won't hand the virus over to
the world now for further study.
Is it possible that RaTG13 could have been manipulated into COVID-19?
Some experts would say yes. And we know, based upon the words of the
WIV researcher, Dr. Shi, that the WIV had eight similar viruses to
RaTG13, but China won't share those either. What are they hiding?
Here is another interesting feature of COVID-19. It likes humans more
than bats. As a matter of fact, it doesn't harm bats. So the CCP
propaganda claims this virus comes from bats, but it doesn't like bats.
Riddle me that.
Furthermore, no ancestors of COVID-19 have been found. Recall what
typically occurs in nature is multiple mutations, just like with the
SARS infection. We should be able to find multiple mutations as the
virus goes from bat loving, to an intermediate liking animal, to human
liking, to human loving. We would certainly welcome contrary evidence
from the Wuhan labs.
Now if you will, forgive me for being a bit of a biology lover, but
as a physician, I think we have to consider just how utterly ferocious
and seemingly too perfect for nature this virus really is
COVID-19 has a very unique spike protein made up by two units. The
first unit has an amazing affinity for human lung cells. It sticks like
glue to human lung cells even if you only get a small whiff of it, and
it uses the same human lung receptor that researchers in the United
States and WIV have been working on together for viral gain of function
and similar lab techniques for years. Perhaps this is just another
coincidence.
To be fair, I really do think all the research has been done with the
best of intentions to develop vaccines for a possible future epidemic.
For all I know, the research already done may have significantly sped
up the success of Operation Warp Speed.
Next we need to discuss one last point about this protein spike and
how it interacts with human lung cells. And if there is a smoking gun,
this is it. Remember I talked about this spike, this crown having two
components, two units. Well, it just so happens that the human lung
cell has a special cleaver, a cleaver that can recognize--you guessed
it--a perfect spot on the COVID-19 spike. Bats don't have this ability,
but human lung cells do.
Anyway, what happens is, after the COVID-19 virus attaches to the
human lung cell like glue, the human lung cell cleaves the COVID-19 in
this perfect spot, and only after this cleavage occurs can the virus
dump its genetic makeup into the human cell and take over the human
genetic machinery.
Now, just don't forget your ninth grade biology class. A virus needs
another organism to reproduce, and this COVID-19 virus, once it grabs a
human lung cell, it is not letting go until it takes over and starts to
multiply like rabbits. After one cell grabs hold and dumps its genetic
content, a chain reaction occurs that really reminds me of a nuclear
chain reaction. Once viral replication ignites, it is next to
impossible to stop.
There are more microbiology nuances we could talk about and why this
supervirus is not seemingly a virus from Mother Nature, but I think you
get my point. Yes, I could be wrong. I hope I am wrong. But only the
Wuhan labs have the data to prove me wrong, and I am afraid the data
that would prove me right or wrong has been forever destroyed.
The geographical origination of this virus is much less complex to
discuss. Today, all evidence points to the geographical start of this
virus from or in very close proximity to the Wuhan labs. The wet market
origination theory has been completely dismantled and is really nothing
more than the usual CCP propaganda and coverup that we have all seen
too often.
Now we know without any doubt that multiple infections predated the
January 2020 event surrounding the wet market theory, and all these
infections can be traced to a close proximity of the Wuhan labs. In
fact, U.S. intelligence reports recently confirmed what we have known
for months--that some WIV researchers were hospitalized as early as the
fall of 2019.
Just to be clear, these bats that are known to harbor this family of
viruses have a range of some 50 miles but live in caves in Yunnan
Province approximately 1,000 miles away from Wuhan. The chances of a
bat carrying this highly infectious virus 1,000 miles away without
leaving a trail of infections between Yunnan and the WIV would be like
the same person walking from New York to Kansas and being struck by
lightning seven times and surviving.
Again, China has the evidence to prove these theories wrong, and I
welcome that data. As a physician, a Senator, a father, and a
grandfather, we have to assume and prepare for the worst and judge the
situation based upon the body of evidence that best describes this
event. We have to get to the bottom of this regardless of whose fault
it is or isn't. We will need to know how to forgive. We will need to
make others take responsibility. But what we can't do is keep burying
our heads in the sand, which is why I am calling on the U.S. delegation
to the World Health Assembly meeting this week to do everything in
their power to ensure that a full and unrestricted international
scientific and forensic investigation into the origins will be
authorized and also for a parallel comprehensive, bipartisan Senate
investigation into the origins as well.
When that is finished, we need to take up the guardrails for viral
gain-of-function studies. But in the meantime, the American people--
really the entire world--deserve to know the answers to the origins of
the COVID-19 virus.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
S. 1260
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I want to rise to say a few words about
the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, which we are debating today. I
think that the thrust of that act and what we are trying to accomplish
is enormously important.
Right now, as I think most people know, we have a crisis in terms of
microchip production here in the United States, and we are becoming
increasingly dependent upon countries all over the world. For our own
manufacturing sector--the automobile sector, the electronics sector--
that is a very bad position to be in, and also, obviously, being
dependent on other countries for microchips is a dangerous place to be
in terms of national security.
I especially like provisions in this legislation which will increase
funding for research and development, increase funding for science and
technology, and invest in more Ph.D.s. We need more Ph.D.s in our
country in science, technology, engineering, and math. I think those
are very important steps in the right direction.
But I do have some very serious concerns about two provisions in this
bill. No. 1, I am deeply concerned about the provisions which will
provide $52 billion in emergency appropriations for the microchip
industry, with no strings attached. Let me repeat that. We are talking
about $52 billion in Federal funds--and, by the way, I suspect there
will be more taxpayer money coming to these corporations from State and
local government--with no strings attached. And, second of all, there
is a provision in this bill, not an appropriation but an authorization,
to provide some $10 billion to the Blue Origin space company, which is
owned by the wealthiest person in the world, Mr. Bezos.
[[Page S3399]]
When we talk about the microchip industry, we are talking about an
industry that is not a poor, struggling industry. In fact, it is an
extremely successful and wealthy industry that is worth now more than
half a trillion dollars--more than $500 billion. We are talking about
an industry, interestingly enough, that, at the same time we are now
trying to provide corporate welfare to them, is an industry that has
shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States over the
past several decades and laid off 150,000 American workers. So what you
have is a situation that, over the last two decades, these very large
corporations said: Why do I want to stay in the United States of
America, pay workers here a living wage, protect environmental
standards? I can go to companies in Asia and elsewhere and buy my
products from them. The result, again, is 780 manufacturing plants in
the last several decades have shut down in America, and 150,000
American workers were laid off.
Now, let's talk about how we don't know exactly--nobody does--where
this $52 billion in corporate welfare is going to go. But, obviously,
it will go to some of the larger microchip companies, and one of the
very largest is Intel.
Let me say a word about Intel. Last year, Intel made nearly $21
billion in profits. So we are proposing to provide many billions of
dollars to a company that, last year, made $21 billion in profits. They
spent $14.2 billion on stock buybacks--$14.2 billion on stock buybacks.
And, by the way, this company which is in line for a major infusion of
U.S. taxpayer money, provided $110 million signing bonus to its CEO,
Patrick Gelsinger.
Since 2015, this very same company, Intel, has shipped over 1,000
jobs overseas. Now, interestingly enough, Intel's CEO has admitted
recently that it does not need corporate welfare. Let's give them
credit for that. The CEO recently said his investment in America ``does
not depend on a penny of government support or state support or any
other investments to make it successful and never will.'' They are
prepared to do it on their own, which is what we hope most private
corporations would do.
Now, among the other very large, leading microchip companies is the
well-known Texas Instruments. They may well be in line to receive
billions of dollars in corporate welfare as well under this piece of
legislation.
Last year, Texas Instruments made $5.6 billion in profits and spent
$2.5 billion buying back its own stock, while it has outsourced
thousands of jobs to low-wage countries. The CEO of Texas Instruments
made over $30 million in total compensation last year--more than 400
times what the median worker at that company made. And this is also
another company in line to receive billions and billions of dollars in
Federal corporate welfare.
Who else might receive corporate welfare under this bill? Well, how
about the major semiconductor company from Taiwan called the Taiwan
Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, or what is often referred to as
``TSMC,'' which is a very, very, very large microchip company. It is
interesting to note who is the largest shareholder in that company.
Well, it should not surprise anybody because this is how countries
around the world do industrial policy, but the largest shareholder in
TSMC is the Government of Taiwan. So when you give TSMC money, you are
giving that money directly to the Government of Taiwan.
Samsung, another very large corporate entity, South Korean, it owns
several plants in Texas. So what we are looking at here is a reality
where taxpayer money from working people in this country will be going
to large, profitable corporations, and several of them are owned
literally by other entities.
In total, the top five semiconductor companies that may well receive
grants under this legislation made nearly $35 billion in profits and
spent more than $18 billion buying back its own stock last year.
So here is the bottom line. I believe that we do want to grow the
microchip industry here in the United States of America for reasons
that everybody is familiar with. That is the industry that we need if
we are going to grow the automobile industry, the electronics industry,
and every other industry in this country. And we need to not be
dependent upon China and other countries for the microchips that are
used in these products.
So I am sympathetic to the goal of this bill, but I am not
sympathetic with the idea of simply laying out $52 billion of
taxpayers' money with no strings attached.
That is why I have introduced Senate amendment No. 2016. This
amendment would prevent microchip companies from receiving taxpayer
assistance unless they agree to issue warrants to the Federal
Government.
If private companies are going to benefit from over $52 billion in
taxpayer subsidies, the financial gains made by these companies must be
shared with the American people, not just wealthy shareholders. In
other words, all this amendment says is that if these companies want
taxpayer assistance, we are not going to socialize all of the risks and
privatize all of the profits.
And let me be very clear; this is not a radical idea. This is not
something that I made up or any other Senator made up. These exact
conditions were imposed on corporations that received taxpayer
assistance in the bipartisan CARES Act, which passed the Senate 96 to
0. In other words, every Member of the U.S. Senate has already voted
for the conditions that are in the amendment that I cosponsored by
Senator Warren, by the way. They are in the amendment that we are
offering.
Further, this amendment will also require companies--again, all of
this was in the CARES Act. Every Member or at least 96 Members of the
Senate voted for these conditions--not a new idea. So in addition to
making sure that companies allow for warrants, it would be demanded
that they could not buy back their own stock, not outsource American
jobs overseas, not repeal existing collective bargaining agreements,
and remain neutral in any union organizing effort.
Again, these are not new ideas, not radical ideas. All of these
conditions are identical to the conditions that were placed in the
CARES Act, which passed 96 to nothing.
I also want to say a word about the provision in there that
authorizes $10 billion for Blue Origin, a company owned by Mr. Bezos.
You know, when we were younger and Neil Armstrong made it to the
Moon, there was incredible joy and pride in this country that the
United States of America did something that people forever had thought
was impossible. We sent a man to the Moon, an extraordinary
accomplishment. And the entire world watched that event with bated
breath. It was just an extraordinary accomplishment for all of
humanity, not just the United States, but we have a special pride
because that was our project.
I worry very much that what we are seeing now are two of the
wealthiest people in this country--Mr. Musk, Elon Musk, and Mr. Bezos--
deciding that they are going to take control over our space efforts to
get to the Moon and maybe even the extraordinary accomplishment of
getting to Mars. What an accomplishment that would be.
But I have to tell you that I have a real problem that, to a
significant degree, we are privatizing that effort. So that as a
nation, we will not sit with pride in saying we did it but instead
saying, well, maybe Mr. Bezos or maybe Mr. Musk sent somebody to the
Moon or maybe even to Mars. This is something that should be an
American effort, that all of us should be part of and not simply be a
private corporation undertaking. So I have a real problem with the
authorization of $10 billion going to somebody who, among other things,
is the wealthiest person in this country.
So what I hope very much is that my amendment will be a part of the
managers' amendments. I suspect there are Republicans who often tell us
about wanting to save taxpayer dollars and not just throw them about
who would be sympathetic to this effort, and I know there are a number
of Democrats who are as well. So I would hope very much that my
amendment No. 2016, which will be modified to just include provisions
that were in the CARES bill, that it will be included in the managers'
amendments that we will be voting on shortly.
With that, I leave the microphone.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
[[Page S3400]]
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, Texas has always been a proud supporter
of an ``all of the above'' energy strategy. We are often recognized as
an oil and gas powerhouse, which we are, but most folks don't know that
we are the No. 1 producer of energy from wind, the No. 1 renewable
resource. In fact, we now produce one-quarter of all wind energy in the
United States. So if Texas were a country--and my friend from Vermont
may be interested in this--we would be the fifth largest wind energy
producer in the world.
Mr. SANDERS. I did know that.
Mr. CORNYN. And we don't have any plans of stopping there. We are
also making serious strides in energy innovation.
A couple of years ago, I visited the NET Power plant in La Porte, TX,
right outside of Houston. NET Power is significant because it has
developed a first-of-its-kind power system that generates affordable
zero-emissions electricity. Using their unique carbon capture
technology, they have taken natural gas, one of the most prevalent and
affordable energy sources, and made it emission-free. That is what
innovation can produce: emission-free electricity from natural gas.
As impressive as this project is, though, it is made even better by
the fact that it is not unique. Private companies are harnessing the
power of human ingenuity to make our most used energy sources emission-
free. Earlier this year, for example, ExxonMobil announced a $100
billion carbon capture and storage project in the Houston area,
otherwise known as the energy capital of the world. This would create a
carbon capture innovation zone to significantly reduce carbon
emissions.
ExxonMobil estimates this project has the potential to store up to
100 million metric tons of carbon per year by the year 2040. A decade
later, Houston could be carbon-neutral.
These kind of developments, I think, are incredibly exciting, and
they showcase, once again, the power of innovation not by the
government but by the private sector.
If we are able to reduce emissions without harming our energy
security, raising taxes, killing high-paying jobs, or driving up costs
to consumers on a fixed income, why wouldn't we? Breakneck changes in
technology have fueled our economy, propelled the communications
sector, and completely transformed our daily lives.
It is time to harness American ingenuity to revolutionize the energy
sector. Smart policies can't prioritize only conservation,
productivity, or economic power. We need to strike a balance of all
three. You are simply not going to achieve the balance by imposing
heavy-handed regulations or making it more expensive. Unfortunately,
that seems to be exactly the path our Democratic colleagues in the
Finance Committee want to take.
Over the last couple of years, we have seen no shortage of
unrealistic and downright harmful policies that are advocated for in
the name of reducing carbon emissions. Some of our colleagues have
proposed everything from the socialist paradise that is the Green New
Deal to a more targeted but no more realistic net zero emissions bill.
Tomorrow, as I suggested, the Finance Committee will mark up the
latest proposal, legislation introduced by Chairman Wyden known by the
innocuous name of the Clean Energy for America Act. But the bill is
anything but innocuous. The bill proposes a complete overhaul of the
energy tax code to finance the full gamut of clean energy policies. At
its core, though, it is an anti-fossil fuel bill.
Given the fact that more than 60 percent of our electricity is
generated by fossil fuels, that strikes me as a pretty radical position
to take. This proposal uses a variety of tax increases to place a
squeeze on fossil fuel producers and to push America toward renewables,
which accounted for no less than 20 percent of our energy production
last year. In other words, they want to push us into the renewable
space that only accounted for 20 percent of our energy production--
completely unrealistic
This proposal would drive up costs for American energy producers and
consumers, who would be the ones ultimately footing the bill. Namely,
senior citizens and those on fixed incomes would be the ones hurt the
most.
I also have serious concerns about how this dramatic shift would
impact our energy security. The higher cost of domestic oil would, once
again, make the United States rely on countries like Russia, Iran, and
Venezuela for our energy needs, and obviously we can all see the
dangers that would produce.
Our friend John McCain aptly described Russia at one time as ``a gas
station masquerading as a country.'' Well, that was pretty funny, but
it is also pretty accurate. Having the United States and our other
allies over a barrel because of lack of energy diversification and
domestic production gives them a lot of power--and too much power.
We know what it has been like for recent decades before we became
more self-sufficient when it came to energy production. I remember,
back in 1980, Jimmy Carter famously issued the Carter doctrine after
the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He suggested that if anyone, any
country, any adversary of the United States were to blockade the Strait
of Hormuz, it would be an act of war because the oil that flowed
through the Strait of Hormuz was essential for our national security
and our economy.
So why in the world would we want to return to those bad old days
when we were dependent on imported energy? Well, this issue was further
underscored in 2009, when Russia effectively turned off the gas in
Ukraine for almost 3 weeks. This affected at least 10 countries in
Europe whose natural gas flowed through that pipeline in Ukraine.
If these tax hikes slowly strangle U.S. energy companies, we could
end up in the same position: dependent on others for our basic energy
needs. After years of building our energy independence and
strengthening our energy security, now is not the time to turn back the
clock. We simply should not put ourselves in a position where we are
reliant on any other country, let alone our adversaries, to keep our
lights on and to keep our economy humming.
And the consequences don't stop there. Beyond harming our energy
security, the legislation that the Finance Committee will consider
tomorrow would kill countless high-paying jobs. It would weaken our
global competitiveness and reverse the economic gains we have made
because of a thriving oil and gas industry. And that is just scratching
the surface of this misguided bill.
One of the most outrageous provisions, though, is the electric
vehicle tax credit proposal. We all know that out of the 280 million
cars on the road in America, the vast majority of Americans drive cars
that run on gas or diesel. When they fill up their tank at the gas
station, they pay a user fee, or a tax, on every gallon they buy. Some
of that money goes into the highway trust fund, the pot of money that
pays to build and repair the roads and bridges we drive on every day.
As we all know, though, the highway trust fund is in dire straits.
Unless something changes, the shortfall over the next decade is
expected to be nearly $200 billion.
Those who drive electric cars don't buy gasoline, obviously. They
don't contribute to the highway trust fund. They don't pay anything to
drive on the roads and bridges every other American has to pay for and
ultimately subsidizes.
The proposal by the chairman of the Finance Committee doubles down on
this problem and makes Americans do even more to subsidize the pricey
electric vehicles owned by wealthy consumers. This legislation extends
electric vehicle incentives, which will come at the cost of other
taxpayers, without addressing the fact that electric vehicles are
already driving on taxpayer-funded roads virtually free of charge. This
is incredibly expensive and benefits only a limited group of wealthy
Americans.
Let's compare the cost of this program to the carbon capture projects
I mentioned. Current electric vehicle subsidies equate to spending
about $455 for every ton of CO2 that is reduced. As a
reminder, this applies only to emission reduction for cars. Electric
vehicle subsidies have zero bearing on the carbon emission of the
manufacturing sector, power generation, or other emission-intensive
industries.
Carbon capture and storage, like the ExxonMobil project I mentioned
earlier, can apply to virtually every source of emissions and at a much
[[Page S3401]]
lower cost. CO2 can be abated for $100 to $200 per ton. That
is less than half the price of an electric vehicle subsidy.
I support efforts to reduce carbon emissions to preserve our air,
land, and water for future generations, but those efforts don't have to
come at this sort of exorbitant price. You can support all energy
sectors and innovation and conservation. These are not mutually
exclusive.
One great example is a bill I introduced called the LEADING Act,
which was signed into law last year. This legislation incentivizes the
research and development of carbon capture technology for natural gas
and innovation in the energy industry at large. That is how we can keep
costs down for taxpayers and maintain this revolution in the energy
sector.
So I will continue to push back on efforts to weaken our energy
independence and harm our economy in pursuit of arbitrary goals. There
is simply no reason to stick taxpayers with the bill for these
unnecessary policies when there are better commonsense ways to promote
both innovation and conservation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington
Order of Business
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate resume legislative session; that the Senate resume consideration
of S. 1260; and that the following amendments be called up and reported
by number: Wyden, 1975; Crapo, 1565; Paul, 2003; Ernst, 1507; Daines,
1787; and Lee, 1891; further, that at 4:45 p.m. today, the Senate vote
in relation to the amendments in the order listed with no amendments in
order to these amendments prior to the vote in relation to the
amendment, with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption and 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________