Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 91 (Tuesday, May 25, 2021)

[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 25, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3401-S3410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENDLESS FRONTIER ACT--Resumed

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume S. 1260, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1260) to establish a new Directorate for
Technology and Innovation in the National Science Foundation,
to establish a regional technology hub program, to require a
strategy and report on economic security, science, research,
innovation, manufacturing, and job creation, to establish a
critical supply chain resiliency program, and for other
purposes.

Pending:

Schumer amendment No. 1502, in the nature of a substitute.
Cantwell amendment No. 1527 (to amendment No. 1502), of a
perfecting nature.

Amendment Nos. 1975, 1565, 2003, 1507, 1787, and 1891 to Amendment No.
1502

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the following
amendments will be called up and reported by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell], for herself and
others, proposes en bloc amendments numbered 1975, 1565,
2003, 1507, 1787, and 1891 to amendment No. 1502.

The amendments are as follows

AMENDMENT NO. 1975

(Purpose: To set forth trade policy, negotiating objectives, and
congressional oversight requirements relating to the response to the
COVID-19 pandemic)

At the end of title III of division F, add the following:

SEC. 6302. TRADE POLICY AND CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF COVID-
19 RESPONSE.

(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) it is imperative to promote the development and
deployment of vaccines, including to address pandemics like
the pandemic relating to COVID-19 and its variants;
(2) as a developed nation with a longstanding commitment to
promoting global health, innovation, access to medicine,
public welfare, and security, the United States will continue
to use the resources and tools at its disposal to promote the
distribution of life-saving COVID-19 vaccines to other
countries;
(3) President Biden should continue to work with foreign
governments, multilateral institutions, nongovernmental
organizations, manufacturers, and other stakeholders to
quickly identify and address, through targeted and meaningful
action, obstacles to ending the COVID-19 pandemic, whether
those obstacles are legal, regulatory, contractual, or
otherwise;
(4) in any efforts to address trade-related obstacles to
ending the COVID-19 pandemic, President Biden should consider
how any action would complement the whole-of-government
approach of the President to ending the COVID-19 pandemic
worldwide, including how any action would impact
competitiveness, innovation, and the national security of the
United States in the short- and long-term;
(5) the President should strive to create the most
appropriate balance between access to COVID-19 vaccines and
therapeutics and generating an innovative environment in the
United States;
(6) the President should take into account the efforts of
malign nations or entities to obtain intellectual property of
United States persons through forced technology transfer,
theft, or espionage, and accordingly make all efforts to
protect that intellectual property from such nations or
entities; and
(7) in any efforts to address trade-related obstacles to
ending the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress expects timely and
meaningful consultations on any negotiations and any
agreements or decisions reached regarding matters of concern
to members of Congress and their constituents, including
issues of competitiveness, innovation, and national security.
(b) Trade Policies With Respect to the COVID-19 Pandemic.--
(1) In general.--It is the policy of the United States to
facilitate an effective and efficient response to the global
pandemic with respect to COVID-19 by expediting access to
life-saving vaccines, medicines, diagnostics, medical
equipment, and personal protective equipment.
(2) Elements.--The United States Trade Representative shall
pursue a timely, effective, and efficient response to the
trade aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including by
endeavoring to--
(A) expedite access to medicines and life-saving products
through trade facilitation measures;
(B) obtain a reduction or elimination of nontariff barriers
and distortions that impact the procurement of life-saving
products;
(C) take action to increase access to COVID-19 vaccines
globally, while avoiding providing access to intellectual
property to nations or entities that seek to utilize the

[[Page S3402]]

technology for other uses or that may otherwise pose a threat
to national security;
(D) eliminate practices that adversely affect trade in
perishable or temperature-sensitive products, and facilitate
the transfer of materials and products in a manner that
preserves their integrity;
(E) further strengthen the system of international trade
and investment disciplines by demonstrating sufficient
flexibility to respond to a global crisis while retaining a
balanced approach to the rights of innovators;
(F) encourage greater cooperation between the World Trade
Organization and other international organizations and
public-private partnerships, including the World Health
Organization, the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund
(commonly referred to as ``UNICEF''), the World Bank, and
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; and
(G) take into account other legitimate domestic policies of
the United States, including health and safety, national
security, consumer interests, intellectual property rights,
and the laws and regulations related thereto.
(c) Congressional Oversight, Consultations, and Access to
Information.--
(1) Intent to negotiate.--If the United States Trade
Representative enters any negotiation pursuant to the trade
policies described in subsection (b), the Trade
Representative shall--
(A) submit to Congress and publish in the Federal Register
a statement specifying the objectives of the United States in
pursuing the negotiation; and
(B) submit to Congress an assessment of how and to what
extent entering the negotiation will achieve the trade
policies described in subsection (b).
(2) Consultation and briefing before making proposals.--
Before making any textual proposal pursuant to the trade
policies described in subsection (b), the United States Trade
Representative shall--
(A) consistent with section 242 of the Trade Expansion Act
of 1962 (19 U.S.C. 1872), consult with the heads of relevant
Federal agencies, including the Secretary of Commerce, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of
Defense, which shall include, as appropriate, discussion of--
(i) the most effective means of addressing the COVID-19
pandemic and any variants to the COVID-19 virus, including by
increasing the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines;
(ii) any sensitive technology or intellectual property
rights related to the proposal;
(iii) any nations or entities of concern that may benefit
from the proposal; and
(iv) other issues that may influence negotiations with
respect to the proposal; and
(B) brief members of the Committee on Finance of the Senate
and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives on the proposal, including with respect to
how the objectives sought by the Trade Representative fit
into a larger strategy of ending the COVID-19 pandemic.
(3) Consultations during negotiations.--In the course of
any negotiations pursuant to the trade policies described in
subsection (b), the United States Trade Representative
shall--
(A) upon request of any Member of Congress, provide access
to pertinent documents relating to the negotiations,
including classified materials;
(B) consult closely and on a timely basis with, and keep
fully apprised of the negotiations, the Committee on Finance
of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the
House of Representatives, including by providing any relevant
text proposals before discussing those proposals with
negotiation participants;
(C) consult closely and on a timely basis with, and keep
fully apprised of the negotiations, the Senate Advisory Group
on Negotiations and the House Advisory Group on Negotiations
convened under section 104(c) of the Bipartisan Congressional
Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (19 U.S.C.
4203(c)) and each committee of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, and each joint committee of Congress, with
jurisdiction over laws that could be affected by the
negotiations; and
(D) follow the guidelines on enhanced coordination with
Congress established pursuant to section 104(a)(3) of the
Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability
Act of 2015 (19 U.S.C. 4203(a)(3)) regarding consultations
with Congress, access to text, and public engagement for the
negotiations to the same extent as those guidelines apply to
negotiations covered under that section.
(4) Consultation with congress before concluding
negotiations.--
(A) Consultation.--Before either reaching a final agreement
or exercising authority provided under section 122(b)(3) of
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3532(b)(3))
pursuant to the trade policies described in subsection (b),
the United States Trade Representative shall consult with--
(i) the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives;
(ii) each committee of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, and each joint committee of Congress, with
jurisdiction over laws that could be affected by the
agreement or exercise of authority; and
(iii) the Senate Advisory Group on Negotiations and the
House Advisory Group on Negotiations convened under section
104(c) of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and
Accountability Act of 2015 (19 U.S.C. 4203(c)).
(B) Scope.--In conducting consultation under subparagraph
(A), the Trade Representative shall--
(i) provide the text of any proposed agreement for final
consideration; and
(ii) consult with respect to--

(I) the nature of the agreement; and
(II) how and to what extent the agreement will achieve the
trade policies described in subsection (b).

(d) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``World Trade
Organization'', ``WTO'', and ``WTO member'' have the meanings
given those terms in section 2 of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501).

Amendment No. 1565

(The amendment is printed in the Record of May 19, 2021, under ``Text
of Amendments.''

AMENDMENT NO. 2003

(Purpose: To prohibit the National Institutes of Health and any other
Federal agency from funding gain-of-function research conducted in
China)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH
CONDUCTED IN CHINA.

(a) In General.--No funds made available to any Federal
agency, including the National Institutes of Health, may be
used to conduct gain-of-function research in China.
(b) Definition of Gain-of-function Research.--In this
section, the term ``gain-of-function research'' means any
research project that may be reasonably anticipated to confer
attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the
virus would have enhanced pathogenicity or transmissibility
in mammals.

AMENDMENT NO. 1507

(Purpose: To prohibit any Federal funding for the Wuhan Institute of
Virology)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING FOR WUHAN INSTITUTE
OF VIROLOGY.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal
funding may be made available to the Wuhan Institute of
Virology located in the City of Wuhan in the People's
Republic of China.

AMENDMENT NO.1787

(Purpose: To direct the President to enforce the intellectual property
provisions of the Economic and Trade Agreement Between the Government
of the United States of America and the Government of China)

At the end of title III of division F, add the following:

SEC. 6302. ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROVISIONS OF
ECONOMIC AND TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND
THE GOVERNMENT OF CHINA.

(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Agreement includes significant mandates for the
People's Republic of China related to its domestic
intellectual property regime, including with respect to
copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and patents;
(2) the changes included in the Agreement, if implemented
effectively, should improve the domestic intellectual
property framework of the People's Republic of China, which
has historically proven to harm the innovation and creative
communities in the United States;
(3) despite commitments made by the Government of the
People's Republic of China under the Agreement, ongoing
market access barriers, uneven enforcement, measures
requiring forced technology transfer, and serious
deficiencies in the rule of law continue to make the business
environment in the People's Republic of China highly
challenging for rights holders in the United States;
(4) as reflected in the 2021 report by the United States
Trade Representative required under section 182(h) of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2242(h)) (commonly referred to
as the ``Special 301 Report''), the People's Republic of
China has consistently been listed in that annual report
since 1989 as a trading partner of the United States that
``fails to provide adequate and effective IP protection and
enforcement for U.S. inventors, creators, brands,
manufacturers, and service providers, which, in turn, harm
American workers''; and
(5) Congress encourages the United States Trade
Representative, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State,
the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of
Commerce, and the Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office--
(A) to use all available tools to ensure that the People's
Republic of China fully implements its commitments under the
Agreement; and
(B) to actively consider additional means to require the
People's Republic of China to address unfair market access
barriers, forced technology transfer requirements, and
broader intellectual property theft concerns, including
through future trade agreements and working with partners in
multilateral organizations, such as the Group of 7 (G7), the
Group of 20 (G20), and the World Trade Organization.
(b) Enforcement of Agreement.--The President, acting
through the United States Trade Representative, shall
coordinate with

[[Page S3403]]

the heads of such Federal agencies as the President considers
appropriate to enforce the actions related to intellectual
property laid out in the Agreement including--
(1) the civil, administrative, and criminal procedures and
deterrent-level civil and criminal penalties provided in the
Agreement; and
(2) by using the full enforcement authority of the
President, including any enforcement authority in connection
with the identification and reporting process under section
182 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2242).
(c) Report on Status of Implementation of Certain
Obligations.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and every 180 days thereafter, the
United States Trade Representative shall submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report on the status of
the implementation by the People's Republic of China of its
obligations under Chapter 1 of the Agreement.
(2) Information in report.--Each report required by
paragraph (1) shall contain information sufficient to enable
the appropriate committees of Congress to assess the extent
of the compliance by the People's Republic of China with the
Agreement, including appropriate quantitative metrics.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the Economic
and Trade Agreement Between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of China, dated January
15, 2020.
(2) Appropriate committees of congress.--The term
``appropriate committees of Congress'' means the Committee on
Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of
the House of Representatives.

AMENDMENT NO. 1891

(Purpose: To impose limitations on research)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ____. LIMITATION ON RESEARCH.

None of the activities authorized by this Act may include,
conduct, or support any research--
(1) using fetal tissue obtained from an induced abortion or
any derivatives thereof;
(2) in which a human embryo is created or destroyed,
discarded, or put at risk of injury;
(3) in which an embryo-like entity is created wholly or in
part from human cells or components;
(4) in which a human embryo is intentionally created or
modified to include a heritable genetic modification; or
(5) using any stem cell the derivation of which would be
inconsistent with the standards established herein.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Delaware.

Washington, D.C. Admission Act

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon, along with several
of our colleagues, to discuss the need to end the policy of taxation
without representation, which millions of Americans in the District of
Columbia have endured for over 200 years and hundreds of thousands
still endure today.
This policy was wrong in 1776, when 13 colonies took on the mightiest
nation on Earth to end it. It is wrong today, and we seek to end it
through the enactment of S. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act.
In just 6 days, our country will observe Memorial Day, a holiday
often observed to mark the start of summer. We celebrate it to mark the
start of summer. But on Memorial Day of this year, many of us will
pause to remember the generations of Americans in our Armed Forces who
have laid down their lives for our country. That is what Memorial Day
is all about. This day means something special in my own family. My own
maternal grandmother was a Gold Star mother.
With the death of John McCain, I am the last Vietnam veteran serving
in the U.S. Senate.
The names of some 58,000 men and women with whom John and I served
are engraved on a black granite wall near the Lincoln Memorial, just a
few miles from where we are standing today. The heroes named on that
wall include brave men and women from Washington, DC, as well. Since
World War I, in fact, over 5,000 Americans from the District of
Columbia have lost their lives in service to the United States. And,
today, roughly 15,000 DC residents are on Active Duty or serving as
reservists or members of the National Guard in the States. That is
15,000 Americans serving dutifully in the Army, Navy, Air Force,
Marines, or the Coast Guard.
Our Nation's Capital is home to more than just monuments and museums.
It is home to Americans who work, who start businesses, and who
contribute to America's economy. And just like all 50 States
represented in this body, the District of Columbia is home to veterans
and servicemembers who risk their lives for our country, even today.
But, year after year, they come home to find that they are still denied
the ability to have a real say in our Nation's future.
These heroes are among the nearly 700,000 Americans who call the
District home and for generations have lived without voting
representation in Congress. That is why I view Washington, DC's
statehood not as a Republican or Democratic issue, not as a political
issue but as an American issue--as an issue of basic fairness and
equality.
Earlier this year, the senior Senator from Utah sought to overturn a
law passed by the DC City Council, right here on the Senate floor. As
U.S. Senators, neither of us should have such an opportunity to
intervene in a local matter like that. But in the Senate, we have power
over the budget of the District of Columbia--let me just point this
out--a city that has a double A-plus credit rating--double A-plus. I am
an old State treasurer. That is pretty darned good--better than most
States, in fact, if you check.
We also have confirmation power in the Congress over the District's
judges, an arrangement that needlessly led to extensive judicial
vacancies and delayed justices for weeks, for months, and, in some
cases, for years. That is wrong.
I reminded my colleagues that day that no one in this room was
elected by the people of the District of Columbia. Nobody in this room
was elected by the people of the District of Columbia, and no one here
was able to stand up and represent their interests. This should be
unacceptable in a 21st century democracy.
However, I believe that the tide is starting to turn. I believe we
can finally make DC statehood a reality during this Congress, the 117th
Congress.
We have a fearless champion in the House, Congresswoman Eleanor
Holmes Norton. With her leadership, along with that of the Speaker and
Leader Steny Hoyer, the House passed their DC statehood bill last month
for the second time--the second time ever.
We also have, for the first time, a President who formally supports
ending this policy--this modern-day policy--of taxation without
representation. And in the Senate, we have a record 45 cosponsors on
our bill to make the District of Columbia a State, a number that
represents Members from rural and urban areas alike. This number has
grown steadily since my friend, our former colleague, Joe Lieberman--a
fiercely independent Senator from Connecticut--led this charge in the
Senate before passing the baton to me in 2013.
I know that some of our colleagues have said that DC statehood is
unconstitutional. To be clear, the District of Columbia has taken the
same steps for statehood that 37 other States have taken since 1791--
the same steps--a process clearly laid out in our Constitution. This
case was made clearly in a letter to Congress just this week from
nearly 40 leading constitutional scholars, who wrote that Congress is
well within its rights to grant statehood.
On a different holiday later this summer, we will be celebrating July
Fourth to remember those who fought for our independence, and I will
remind my colleagues again that the Founding Fathers, the same men who
wrote our Constitution, had a rallying cry during the Revolutionary
War: There is no taxation without representation.
Yet that is exactly what is happening to the citizens in the District
of Columbia today. The reality is that these citizens pay the most--get
this, the citizens of the District of Columbia pay the most--in per
capita Federal income taxes in the United States, more than any other
State, but they have no say in how those dollars are spent, none.
This second-class status must come to an end, and we in Congress are
the ones who can do something about it
Winston Churchill once said: You can always count on America to do
the right thing in the end, after they have tried everything else.
It is never too late to do the right thing. The right thing to do now
is to ensure that nearly 700,000 Americans living in the District of
Columbia, serving in our military, voting, actually have a chance to
vote on the representation in this body and in the House. The right
thing to do is to end this policy of taxation without representation.

[[Page S3404]]

With that, I thank you, and I yield the floor to some of my
colleagues who, I believe, will be joining us on this call, including
the Senator from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I am honored to join in a colloquy with
some of my colleagues today on this urgent issue to really talk about
the central function of our democracy, whether the ideals of this
Nation are real for every American.
Now, if you cut me, I am going to bleed Jersey. But let me tell you
very plainly that I am proud to have grown up in Jersey, but I am also
proud to have been born in Washington, DC. This is where my parents met
after college. This is where they fell in love. Their first date was at
the Jefferson Memorial, at the paddle boats there at the Reflecting
Pool. They, there, remember--telling me--just the love they had for
each other that was already dawning, but also this fierce allegiance to
this incredible community that is Washington, DC. My mom talked about
the activism that was here. She was working for the public schools as a
speech pathologist, and she talked about this patriotic feel that she
had, especially when she was helping to organize the March on
Washington. The words on the Jefferson Memorial, where my parents had
their first date, at the end of Declaration of Independence, say:
``[W]e mutually pledge . . . our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred
Honor.''
That is what we are called to pledge to one another, but for too long
the people of this city have not had the honor, the privileges, the
equal citizenship rights that so many others in every State in our
Union, in all parts of our democracy, enjoy. These are rights, as my
colleague says, that Washington, DC--in fact, disproportionate to many
other States--people from this community have bled for and died for.
This city is an extraordinary place. It is a community. It
outnumbers, in fact, in population other States. And we believe that
the ideals of one person, one vote, no taxation without
representation--that all of these are rights being denied fellow
Americans. Where is the honor in that?
Veterans and servicemembers living here in DC did indeed fight for
us, put their lives on the line for us, but do not have equal
citizenship rights.
The people of DC pay both local and Federal taxes that go to help the
people in red States and blue States. They are a city that pays more
taxes than they are necessarily receiving back, but when the people of
DC need help, when they need an advocate with voting power, they don't
have one in this body or in the one across the hall.
The lack of representation really has consequences--serious ones--
that significantly decreases DC's leverage in getting laws passed and
securing vital resources for its residents. We saw this firsthand in
the first COVID-19 stimulus bill. Washington, DC, received $725 million
less in critical aid than other less populous States. That was funding
needed for Washington, DC, first responders, for COVID-19 tests, and
other important lifesaving services. They were treated as second-class
citizens.
How is this fair? How is this just? How is this sacred honor? And how
can this be partisan? These are our sacrosanct values for those of us
on both sides of the aisle. This is how our democracy was intended to
function. These were some of the elements of the Revolutionary War.
I am hard-pressed to believe that my colleagues on either side of the
aisle don't recognize that to deny the people of Washington, DC,
representation is contrary to the values that we state regularly on
this floor. Making DC a State is truly a civil rights issue, and it is
also an issue of racial justice.
DC is a majority-minority city, and the people of this city deserve
the same opportunity that other less populated States have to make
their voices heard in Congress. This is especially urgent as we are
seeing so many States around the country enact sweeping voting laws
intended to make it harder for the DC majority--Black and Brown folks--
to even vote.
As U.S. Senators, we have an obligation not just to pass laws but to
be stewards of democratic ideals and principals. We took an oath to
that. Making DC a State is not just a matter of civil rights for DC. It
is about all of us because our democracy will only survive as long as
its true representation is that of all of its people. Truly, we know in
this Nation--it has been said by greater leaders before us--that
injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
The people of DC have made clear what they want, saying it loudly.
They deserve full citizenship rights. They deserve the right to vote.
They deserve the right to have representation. They want to be the 51st
State. They should be the 51st State.
My parents lived for many years in this city, and I heard about DC
statehood as a little boy growing up in New Jersey. For them, it was a
matter of dignity and respect. It was a matter of valuing this
community and the richness of its people. To them, it is a shortfall in
the evolution of our democracy that the people of this great city
should be denied the very ideals that are written on the Jefferson
Memorial.

I urge my colleagues to move on this and to grant this DC statehood
and to afford them the sacred honor that all Americans deserve.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I am thrilled to rise and join my
colleagues in pressing the case for DC statehood. I won't be long
because I was on the floor about 3 weeks ago talking about this same
matter. I really talked about Virginia then. I talked about Patrick
Henry.
The phrase ``no taxation without representation'' is a phrase that we
learn coming up in elementary school. The root of it isn't really at
the beginning of, say, the Declaration of Independence or during the
Revolutionary War; that phrase really came about as colonists rallied
to oppose the Stamp Act.
The Stamp Act was an act of Parliament in 1765 that put a tax on
paper goods, including newspapers and pamphlets and periodicals. The
English Crown was getting very, very worried about the restive nature
of Americans pressing their case for being treated equally as royal
colonists and subjects of the Crown, but they were not happy with the
way they were being treated.
The Stamp Act was an attempt not just to levy a tax, but it was also
an attempt to shut down their rights to have political discussions.
Patrick Henry led an effort in the Virginia General Assembly in 1765
that came to be known as the four resolves. He put five resolves on the
table, one of which was set aside, but four resolves were passed, and
the core of the four resolves was to protest taxation without
representation.
One of my great regrets was wanting to hear the great orators of
history and never to have had a chance to hear Patrick Henry, although
I have heard good Patrick Henry impersonations at St. John's Church in
Richmond. What a powerful speaker--the ``Give me liberty or give me
death'' speech on the very kind of verge of the United States declaring
independence; his court advocacy as a relatively untrained lawyer in
Virginia on behalf of religious freedoms so that people who were not
part of the established Church of England could still practice their
faith as they chose. But many believe that Henry's advocacy against the
Stamp Act was his most powerful oratory.
I read excerpts from the resolves when I was here 3 weeks ago, but
now I want to jump from Patrick Henry to somebody else who is very much
in the spirit of Patrick Henry, and that is Frederick Douglass.
If DC becomes a State, it will become a State named in honor of the
abolitionist Frederick Douglass.
Frederick Douglass certainly was an inheritor of the Patrick Henry
tradition. He was enslaved for the first 20 years of his life, and then
following the Civil War, he moved to the Nation's Capital to become so
many things--diplomat, civil rights leader, confidant of President
Lincoln, President Grant, and others.
In his autobiography, ``The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass,''
he wrote:

The District of Columbia is the one spot where there is no
government for the people, of the people, and by the people.
Its citizens submit to rulers whom they have had no choice in
selecting. They obey laws which they had no voice in making.
They have a

[[Page S3405]]

[sic] plenty of taxation, but no representation. In the great
questions of politics in the country, they can march with
neither army [neither party], but are relegated to the
position of neuters.

Those are the words of the great Frederick Douglass echoing the
Patrick Henry speech a century earlier against the Stamp Act. Those
words are as true today as they were when he wrote them, and they were
as true when he wrote them as when Patrick Henry delivered them in
1765.
In the history of States coming into the Union, most States have some
pretty interesting background and history, but there are some common
themes. The two commonalities--but then there has been one quirk that I
want to mention as I conclude--the two commonalities are States come
into the Union when they achieve sufficient population and when they
have a demonstrated desire that is not just temporary, effervescent,
but is essentially fixed and permanent
In the mid-1800s, Congress would set a population deadline. Say, for
example, in the Northwest Territory, Michigan was told: As soon as you
get to 60,000 residents, then we will entertain you if you want to be a
State, but you have to do a referendum first.
There is no minimum number established by Congress in terms of
population now to become a State, but we would all agree that DC would
pass any minimum because DC is larger than States that currently are
part of the Union. So whatever criteria we might set--well, you need to
be of sufficient size to be a State--DC has met that.
DC has met the second criteria as well, which is demonstrated desire,
most recently in a referendum in 2016 where the overwhelming sentiment
of DC, as you would expect, was a patriotic sentiment: We want to be a
State of the greatest Nation on Earth.
So those two criteria have usually been sufficient for States having
demonstrated that or territories or populations having demonstrated
that to become part of the Union and to have their star added to the
flag of this country.
There have been controversies, though, bluntly, when States have
sizable minority populations.
The quest of Hawaii for statehood took longer than it otherwise would
have because many Members of this body stood on the floor and expressed
concerns about whether Hawaii would be a cultural match for the United
States because of the predominant API and indigenous population. I am
sad to say that some of those who took the floor and raised those
questions and objections were from Virginia.
The State of New Mexico had a particularly rocky path to becoming a
State because Members of this body, including from Virginia, took the
floor and raised a question about the size, the population, the
percentage of New Mexico's indigenous and Latino population.
About 46 percent of the population of DC is African American, folks
who--many march in the footsteps and quest for the same equality that
Frederick Douglass was questing for in the 1800s.
I hope we can show that the failures of the past that led statehood
for New Mexico and Hawaii to take perhaps longer than should have been
the case--I hope we will have learned something from that and can move
finally to grant these 700,000-plus residents of this wonderful city in
our Nation's Capital the ability to be a State.
The last thing I will say is this. I did say this when I was on the
floor 3 months ago. We haven't added a State, we haven't added a star
to our flag for I guess 70 years now, about 70 years. I don't think a
fixed number of stars on the flag sends a message of a growing,
thriving nation. I think it might send the message of a nation that is
kind of fixed. When you are fixed and set and not willing to change, I
believe that can almost send a little bit of a message of decline.
Throughout our Nation's history, the addition of stars to the flag
has sent the message of an America that--we are not done growing. We
are not done expanding. We are on the move. History isn't done with us
yet.
The fact that we haven't added a State--this has been the longest
period of time in the history of the United States where we haven't
added a star to the flag. I think doing so would suggest very
powerfully that the best days of our Nation aren't behind us; they are
still ahead of us.
For these reasons and those articulated by my colleagues, I strongly
support the effort for DC statehood.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking the senior
Senator from Delaware for his longtime persistence in making sure that
this Congress ultimately does the right thing and makes the District of
Columbia the 51st State.
I want to thank Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton for representing
the people of the District of Columbia so ably. She deserves a vote in
the House of Representatives just like every other Member of the House
of Representatives from the 50 States. The District of Columbia
deserves two Senators right here in the U.S. Congress.
I want to thank President Biden for saying that if this Senate will
just get this bill to his desk, he will sign that piece of legislation
and make sure that these people in the District of Columbia are
represented as every other citizen in the 50 States is currently
represented.
All of us come to this floor and we hear our colleagues on both sides
of the aisle talking about the importance of democracy overseas. We
criticize China, rightly, when it begins to snuff out the right to vote
in Hong Kong. We criticize the authoritarian rulers in Belarus when
they clamp down on freedom. We look around the world, and we try our
best to establish a standard for standing up for the principle of
democracy. We are not always consistent. We are not always constant in
that message, but we make an effort to do that. We need to look in the
mirror and make that same effort right here at home.
I hear so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
talking about the importance of democracy around the world, but when it
comes to granting the people in the District of Columbia the full
rights of a democracy--the right to two votes in the Senate and a vote
in the House--they are not there.
The people of the District of Columbia are fed up and tired of the
hypocrisy. They are even more fed up about what my friend and
colleague, the Senator from Virginia, was just talking about--the fact
that they contribute in every way to our country but are denied the
right to have voting representation in the House and the Senate.
As the Senator from Virginia said and others have said, a founding
principle of our revolution was the idea that nobody should be subject
to taxation without representation. The Senator from Virginia talked
about Patrick Henry, and there are others who we know established that
principle. Here in the Nation's Capital, the people of the District of
Columbia pay higher taxes than those in 22 other States; yet they don't
have a vote in the House or two Senators to represent them.
They have also had people who served in every one of our wars, who
spilled blood for this country. Yet, while they helped to protect our
democracy from threats abroad, they don't have the right here, in our
democracy, to cast those votes for voting representatives in the House
and the Senate.
This is not a partisan issue. We know it shouldn't be. We know that
if every Member put on a blindfold and just said that the people of the
District of Columbia deserve a vote without thinking of the political
outcome, the people of the District of Columbia would have a State.
As others have pointed out, two States have smaller populations, but
they have two Senators who can cast votes here in this Chamber. The
State of Wyoming and the State of Vermont are both smaller population-
wise than the District of Columbia, but they have those rights and
representatives here in the U.S. Senate.
We should move forward with the State of Washington, Douglass
Commonwealth, and to hear our Republican colleagues oppose this idea,
since they don't want to take it on the principle of democracy--we have
heard some absurd reasons given for why the District of Columbia should
not be a State. Here are a few. And if anybody doubts that Republican
Members in the House or Senate have said these things, I will be happy
to show it to you.

[[Page S3406]]

We have heard from Members of Congress that people of the District of
Columbia don't deserve statehood because it doesn't have a landfill. We
have heard that the District of Columbia shouldn't be given statehood
because it needs more car dealerships. First, they said: Well, it can't
be a State because it has no car dealerships, but now it doesn't have
enough of them. Others have said: Well, because it lacks a mining
industry, how could it possibly be a State? And then most recently, we
heard that it would be unfair to give the people of the District of a
Columbia a State here because their representatives would have an
unfair advantage. They would have special superpowers because they
would be so close to this Capitol that they would somehow be able to
get an unfair leg up on everybody else here in the U.S. Senate.

These are reasons that Republican House Members and Senators have
given for denying the people of the District of Columbia the right to
statehood. We all know what they are. It is just a wall of excuses in
their trying to obfuscate and prevent us from getting to the main
issue. If you don't want to talk about the principle of democracy,
change the subject.
The real concern, as we know, is that the people of the District of
Columbia will cast votes for representatives in the House and Senate
who they think best reflect their interests, and they believe that, in
the current situation, those seats will go to Democratic Members in the
Senate and the House.
As my colleagues have said, the District of Columbia is comprised of
a majority of people of color, and the Senator from Virginia talked
about the history of that having been an impediment to the admission of
some other States in the past before the country did the right thing.
We have the power to do the right thing.
I have here a letter from 39 constitutional scholars affirming our
authority to make the District of Columbia the 51st State. We should do
it.
Frederick Douglass once noted that the District of Columbia was ``one
spot where there is no government for the people, of the people, and by
the people.'' His words are a call from history--a call that demands
that we reflect on this act of selective disenfranchisement that has
been happening for generations and which is still happening to this day
right outside of this building right now. Let us change that today. Let
us change that and make this the 51st State and name it in honor of
Frederick Douglass.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I first want to thank my colleague and
friend Senator Carper for leading this effort with S. 51, the
Washington, D.C. Admission Act. It is long overdue that we acknowledge
an injustice in our country and give the citizens of the District of
Columbia their full representation rights by statehood.
I have been working on this issue for a long time. When I was the
speaker of the Maryland General Assembly almost 40 years ago, the
Maryland General Assembly took action to give full representation to
the people of the District in the Congress of the United States. That
was 40 years ago, and we are still working on this issue. It is long
overdue that we acknowledge a shortcoming in our own system for 700,000
residents of the District of Columbia.
I had the honor of chairing the U.S. Helsinki Commission. It is the
implementing arm for the Helsinki Final Act of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe. It has the membership of all of the
countries of Europe and the former Soviet Union, Central Asia, Canada,
and the United States. I mention that because in 1975, those countries
entered into an agreement on basic, fundamental democratic principles,
including the right to have representative government.
That document also gives us the opportunity and obligation to
question whether member states are in compliance with the Helsinki
Final Act. Quite frankly, we have used that opportunity to raise issues
in countries.
Our Presiding Officer has been very aggressive in his comments about
Russia, and we have used that to bring up the fact that Russia violated
the commitments of the Helsinki Final Act when it invaded Ukraine and
when it took over Crimea, and it is still interfering with the
sovereignty of Ukraine. We have offered our objections when Russia's
Government has stepped on the human rights of the people of its own
country--like those of Aleksei Navalny's, the opposition leader, being
imprisoned and tortured. That is in violation of the Helsinki Final
Act. We have raised those issues.
We have raised those issues about another member state, Turkey, when
they have jailed journalists or failed to allow civil society an
opportunity to be heard, for they are violations of the Helsinki Final
Act.
For us to have credibility in raising these issues of other countries
that are violating the fundamental principles, we have to self-evaluate
where we are. If we are going to be leaders, we have to acknowledge our
own shortcomings and take steps to eliminate those shortcomings.
Quite frankly, we are an outlier when it comes to the representation
for the people of the District of Columbia. We have violated their
basic rights. We are the only country in the world wherein the citizens
of its capital do not have the opportunity to vote for representatives
in the national legislature. That is not a distinction that we want to
have
The 700,000 people who live in the District are being denied
representation in their government. As has been pointed out, it is
larger than some of our States. Those States have fewer people but have
two U.S. Senators and a Member of the House of Representatives, and the
people of the District should be likewise treated.
This is not a matter of politics; this is a matter of fundamental
rights. America's strength is in our values, in who we are as a people.
Our ability to lead globally depends upon our doing the right thing at
home.
We need to give the District of Columbia that status. The House has
already done this. It passed H.R. 51. It has done this and has given
the bill to us. All we need to do now is take it up and pass it. So let
us act now, at long last, and do what is right for the people of the
District and do what is right for the people of our Nation by
correcting this violation that we have in our system. Let's pass S. 51,
led by Senator Carper, for DC statehood and make sure that America
continues to lead in democratic values around the world.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my
remarks before any rollcall votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

S. 1260

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, this week is Indy 500 Week in the State of
Indiana. For these 7 days, Hoosiers will be swept up in the pageantry
and the tradition of the Greatest Spectacle in Racing. Every minute
this week is leading toward the moment when the white flag comes out,
signifying the final lap, when the drivers make one last push toward
the finish line.
I couldn't help but think about this annual tradition as we enter the
home stretch on the Endless Frontier Act in the coming days. The
legislation has evolved and improved and grown over the last few
months. We now know it as the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, but
as we head into this week, I thought it important to reset and refocus
on why we began this journey in the first place.
For me, it began back in 2019, in the gym of all places, where one
morning, Senator Schumer and I began talking about the need to go on
offense against the Chinese Communist Party. Since the Cold War,
Beijing has aimed to overtake America, not with weapons but through
innovation, through economic growth. Through Made in China 2025,
Beijing set out with a deliberate plan to dominate the world through
strategic investments and emerging technologies, all of which have the
potential to fundamentally change this century's economic and security
environment for good or for ill.
Until now, we have primarily focused on defensive countermeasures to
thwart aggression by the Chinese Communist Party: blocking Huawei,
imposing export controls, and improving foreign investment rules. Look,
these priorities are really important, and they must remain part of the
mix, but if

[[Page S3407]]

America is to lead the world in the 21st century, it is neither
realistic nor practical to build an economic iron curtain around China.
You see, just as we did in the 20th century, we must not simply contain
our leading global competitor but, instead, outinnovate and outgrow it.
We must go on offense.
The Endless Frontier Act was and is our effort to do just that, to
make the kinds of research and science investments we haven't made for
decades. We are creating a new Technology Directorate at the National
Science Foundation and creating regional tech hubs to ensure we are
leveraging the talents and abilities of Americans across the country,
with the corresponding economic benefits reaching those in the heart of
our country, not just those on the coasts.
This legislation will be a boost to our economy, but make no
mistake--it is not just about the economy. This is about deciding which
standards, which values are going to animate these new technologies in
the future: the values we see cracking down on protesters in the
streets of Hong Kong? the values that enslave millions of Uighurs in
Xinjiang? our American values, which recognize that all men are created
equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights?
America is watching, and the free world is watching. All who are
watching should be encouraged. You see, this body has largely embraced
this objective. We have continued to go through the regular Senate
order--an increasingly rare accomplishment in this body--of allowing
each Member to offer amendments to improve this legislation. In fact,
it was marked up in the Senate Commerce Committee and approved by a
vote of 24 to 4. Last week, it came to the Senate floor, and we
considered more amendments. This week, we will consider even more
amendments.
As is typically the case in regular order, nobody gets everything he
wants, including the bill's authors. As one example, through the markup
process, less investment than I had originally proposed will now be
provided to the NSF Tech Directorate, but that is OK. It is OK because
this change and others are ones I can live with so that we can come
together and prove that our system works while advancing a once-in-a-
generation investment in science and technology.
We must send a message to the authoritarians in Beijing. They say we
are too divided to lead the world in the 21st century. It is time to
come together and prove them wrong.
As we Hoosiers say at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, the white flag
is out. This is the final lap for this bill in the U.S. Senate. I look
forward to seeing this open process through to the finish line so that,
together, we can outcompete, outinnovate, and outgrow the Chinese
Communist Party.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I and Senator
Wyden and Senator Schumer may be able to complete our remarks before
the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1565

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on amendment No. 1565
to the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, or USICA, the underlying
bill.
My amendment preserves the constitutional authority of Congress over
international trade. It does so by ensuring the President cannot waive
or modify congressionally approved trade agreements, including the WTO
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or
TRIPS--the TRIPS Agreement. And the reason is that the TRIPS Agreement,
like the USICA, contains provisions that facilitate the leadership of
the United States in scientific and technological innovation.
China is challenging that leadership through predatory practices
aimed at our highest value sectors, including our pharmaceutical
sector. Plain and simple, China wants our intellectual property.
Remarkably, the administration announced, without consulting
Congress, that it would support a waiver of U.S. intellectual property
rights under the TRIPS Agreement with respect to vaccines. Moreover,
the U.S. Trade Representative declined to confirm that she would oppose
letting this waiver extend to China.
Colleagues, there are vaccines precisely because the innovative U.S.
firms exist because of strong IP protections. The problem with access
to vaccines is not intellectual property. The problem is the
manufacturing capacity.
This amendment I am proposing allows the administration to proceed,
providing it is willing to make the case, including by presenting
evidence and respecting Congress's authority. The outcome is subject to
congressional approval, just like the original TRIPS Agreement.
I also demand real consultation with Congress. My colleague's
amendment provides only that the administration will provide relevant
proposals and pertinent documents to Congress related to the final
agreement. There is no reason to grant this leeway to the
administration given its existing failure to consult with us.
My amendment requires the administration to provide the text of any
U.S. proposal to Congress 5 business days before it is tabled in a
trade negotiation, not after it has agreed to amend a congressionally
approved agreement.
With respect to that agreement and the other WTO agreements, we have
spoken clearly as a body that the United States can withdraw from these
agreements if, and only if, Congress passes a resolution to that
effect.
For example, it requires reports on issues central to whether the
administration's decision makes sense and provides for consultation by
the administration with the public and Congress concerning its
proposal. This will facilitate transparency, identify any national
security risks presented by the administration's proposal, and,
importantly, will stop an action that does not further vaccine access
or present a risk to our national security.
Accordingly, if the administration's proposal is determined by the
administration's own Agencies not to present a risk to U.S. national
security and that it positively facilitates vaccine access, the
administration may continue negotiating and seeking an outcome for a
waiver.
It must not be the case that once Congress approves a trade
agreement, the administration can simply withdraw rights or obligations
under a congressionally approved trade agreement or alter its terms
however it sees fit. Yet that is exactly what the administration is
seeking to do here.
If we were to accept that proposition, what is the point for
Congress's approving any future trade agreement if the administration
can simply alter it without again coming to Congress to make that
change?
This amendment ensures that the administration's proposal will, in
fact, get a vote by applying fast-track-like procedures to its
conclusions. It also prohibits our IP from going to China or Russia.
I have only one redline, which I suspect all of you share: The
administration may not waive U.S. IP rights under the TRIPS Agreement
to China and Russia. Congress approved the entry of these two countries
into the WTO precisely because we wanted to hold them accountable to
WTO rules.
Russia and China are a threat to American innovation and the
principle reason why the USICA is before us on the floor of the Senate
today. So why would we then allow the administration to legally bless
their malfeasance?
If we must stand together and waive the IP rights of Americans, the
least we can do is insist that China and Russia, which tout the
successes of their own vaccines, not be allowed to take hard-earned
U.S. technology.
This concern is particularly valid since the Chinese Government is
actively trying to steal mRNA technology, and its efforts to develop
such technology is led, in fact, by an arm of the Chinese military
USICA is a sincere, bipartisan effort to promote American innovation
in the face of China's predations. My amendment complements that effort
and must likewise be considered.
I encourage all of my Democrat and Republican colleagues to support
it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Amendment No. 1975

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, Senator Crapo has brought
forward an amendment to the competition bill. It deals with the Biden
administration's announcement that it

[[Page S3408]]

would participate in negotiations on intellectual property and the
coronavirus vaccines.
Unfortunately, my friend's amendment also goes far beyond the current
pandemic and adds roadblocks to any improvements to any other trade
agreements into the future. So I must oppose Senator Crapo's amendment.
I am offering an alternative, which the Senate will also vote on
shortly. The fact is that even though COVID is receding in many
American communities, the virus will still be a danger to Americans as
long as there are outbreaks and mutations around the world.
That is a big reason why the Biden administration is working overtime
to increase vaccine production and distribution as quickly as possible
in our country and around the world. It is also why the administration
announced its intention to participate in negotiations over the vaccine
IP waivers. The U.S. Trade Representative will be in charge of our
participation in those negotiations.
Again, unfortunately, the Crapo amendment would tie up our U.S. Trade
Representative in bureaucratic redtape and reporting for many months
before she could speak to any of our trading partners about the issue.
Ambassador Tai and the Biden administration recognize that the TRIPS
waiver is not going to end the pandemic overnight. However, the
American people and countries around the world cannot afford the delay
that the Crapo amendment would cause.
The Crapo amendment puts the U.S. Trade Representative into what
amounts to a straitjacket, making it hard--if not impossible--to
negotiate fixes or modifications to any trade agreement, for any
reason. It would make the process for modifying an agreement more
difficult than getting into that agreement in the first place. That is
a big roadblock to improvements that could raise standards for workers
and the environment.
I will close by mentioning that I have filed an alternative,
amendment 1975. My amendment guarantees transparency and consultations
throughout the negotiations. It makes clear that the United States must
promote global access to vaccines, all while safeguarding our IP from
hostile foreign powers and protecting American innovation.
So here is the bottom line: It is not only possible, it is absolutely
essential for our system to include strong intellectual property
protections, as well as exceptions to promote the common good at the
same time.
My amendment strikes the right balance. The Crapo amendment just goes
too far in the direction of blocking the administration from using all
available tools to fight the pandemic and to make improvements to any
other trade agreements.
For that reason, I urge Senators to support my amendment, 1975. I
urge my colleagues to oppose my friend's amendment, the Crapo
amendment, and that will be the next vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all votes
after the first be 10 minutes in length, and we are going to try to
stick to it as best we can. So please, Members, we are trying to
finish. We have six votes. We are trying to get them done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Vote on Amendment No. 1975

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the
Wyden amendment, No. 1975.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, 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 50, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]

YEAS--50

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

NAYS--49

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
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 PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). On this vote, the yeas are 50,
and the nays are 49.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The amendment (No. 1975) was rejected.

Vote on Amendment No. 1565

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now appears on the Crapo
amendment, No. 1565.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back his time.
Mr. WYDEN. I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Wyden yields back the majority time.
All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the Crapo 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 205 Leg.]

YEAS--53

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

NAYS--46

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

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). On this vote, the yeas are 53,
the nays are 46.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The amendment (No. 1565) was rejected.

Amendment No. 2003 to Amendment No. 1502

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate, equally divided,

[[Page S3409]]

prior to the vote in relation to the Paul amendment No. 2003.
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, we may never know whether the pandemic arose
from the lab in Wuhan, but we do know that so far no intermediate
animal host has been discovered. Thousands of animals at the wet market
have been looked at. None of them have carried COVID-19. We have tried
to infect COVID-19 into bats. It doesn't grow well in bats. It seems
most adapted and suitable for humans. We may not know whether this ever
arose out of a Wuhan lab, but I think gain-of-function research, where
we take a deadly virus, sometimes much more deadly than COVID, and then
we increase its transmissibility to mammals is wrong.
In 2014, NIH stopped all of this research. I am using the same
definition to say any gain-of-function research should not be funded in
China with U.S. taxpayer dollars. I recommend a ``yes'' vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 2003

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the
60-vote requirement for this amendment and yield back time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
It seems as if the ayes have it.
(Applause.)
The amendment (No. 2003) was agreed to.
Mr. SCHUMER. Let's hear it for Rand Paul for passing an amendment
unanimously.

Amendment No. 1507 to Amendment No. 1502

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, on the Ernst amendment No. 1507.
The Senator from Iowa.
Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, for years prior to the COVID pandemic, U.S.
taxpayer dollars were being funneled into Communist China's state-run
Wuhan Institute of Virology.
After COVID appeared in the vicinity of the Wuhan Institute, instead
of cooperating with efforts to discover the source of the outbreak,
Chinese officials instead ordered the destruction of some of the
coronavirus samples and blocked access to the lab.
China continues to obstruct international efforts to discover the
origins of COVID, refusing to allow independent scientists to review
the database of coronaviruses that were being studied in the Wuhan
Institute.
Providing additional U.S. funds to subsidize any state-run lab in
China, especially the Wuhan Institute of Virology, goes against the
very purpose of the underlying bill, which is to support more research
in the United States to better compete with China.
My amendment would assure that not another dime of taxpayer dollars
goes to subsidizing Communist China.
With that, I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

VCote on Amendment No. 1507

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the
60-vote requirement for this amendment, and I yield back time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1507) was agreed to.
(Applause.

Amendment No. 1787 to Amendment No. 1502

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to the consideration of the
Daines amendment No. 1787.
Senator Daines.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, this amendment is called the Protecting IP
Act. It is a bipartisan amendment that will help increase enforcement
of the United States and China phase one trade deal.
This deal put in place important protections for America's
intellectual property, the research inventions, copyrights, and more.
China has been a notorious and serial abuser of American intellectual
property for decades, and that is why the phase one deal put in place a
number of important safeguards. Unfortunately, China has not lived up
to their end of the deal. It is critical that we hold China accountable
for its commitments.
As we debate increasing investment in advanced research, we cannot
look the other way and allow China to continue to steal American
intellectual property. That is why I introduced this bipartisan
Protecting IP amendment with Senator Cortez Masto, to ensure the
President and the USTR uses all available tools to enforce the phase
one agreement.
We are in a race against China and must remain globally competitive.
That is why I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense and
bipartisan agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Vote on Amendment No. 1787

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the
60-vote requirement for this amendment and yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1787) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1891 to Amendment No. 1502

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to the vote in relation to
the Lee amendment No. 1891.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 2
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, all human lives from conception to natural
birth have innate, immeasurable dignity and worth. They are not play
things. They are not mere objects for scientific experimentation.
Experiments that use aborted fetal tissue and practices that create
and destroy human embryos or human lives in their earliest stages of
development flatly deny that truth. Unfortunately, our own tax dollars
sometimes incentivize experiments of this very kind. And the bill
before us provides no exceptions, no protections to prevent it.
The Endless Frontier Act includes over $80 billion of authorized
funding for key areas of biotechnology, medical technology, genomics,
and synthetic biology without any ethical guardrails or protections for
the earliest stages of life.
Many Americans do not want to see their taxpayer dollars used to
destroy, experiment on, or unethically alter human life, and they
shouldn't be forced to do so.
Now, thankfully, there are some of these protections in annual
appropriations measures that go through the Department of Health and
Human Services. And they have been there for decades, but because this
bill expands research at the NSF, the Department of Commerce, and the
Office of Science and Technology, which are funded through a different
appropriations bill through CJS, the HHS riders do not apply.
That is why I am offering this amendment, which would simply prohibit
any research funded through the Endless Frontier Act from using fetal
tissue obtained from an abortion and creating, destroying, discarding
or putting human embryos at risk.
While the NSF currently has an Agency policy that bans research in
which a human embryo is created or destroyed, this would codify that.
We need it to codify that. We need this to be consistent with what we
do elsewhere to protect the sanctity of human life.
Look, human lives at every stage are too precious to tinker with. Our
research and laws should uphold this truth. This amendment would help
ensure permanent protections to do precisely that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this bill is an important opportunity for
Congress to put partisanship aside and help families in our country by
boosting American competitiveness. This means making sure American
research is guided by science, not by ideology.
Unfortunately, with this amendment, the Senator is doing the exact
opposite. This amendment says, loud and

[[Page S3410]]

clear, that even during a pandemic, supporters will put ideology ahead
of science and ahead of patients' health and gladly undermine the same
type of research that helped develop new therapies for COVID-19.
This is an irresponsible, ideological attack on science and medical
research. And it not only undermines doctors and researchers and
patients' healthcare, it also undermines the goal of this whole bill,
which is to boost American innovation and competitiveness. I urge a
``no'' vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 1891

Mr. LEE. I call for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 206 Leg.]

YEAS--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
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--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
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1891) was rejected.
The Senator from New York.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1520

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise tonight to once again call for
this entire body to have the opportunity to consider the Military
Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. This would ensure
that people in the military who have been subjected to sexual assault
and other serious crimes get the justice they deserve.
I first introduced this legislation in 2013. Since then, the
committee has had 8 years to consider it, to ask questions, to pursue
changes, and to implement alternative solutions, and we have. In fact,
over the period of 15 years, the committee enacted nearly 250
legislative provisions designed to address the scourge of sexual
assault in the military. We have modified data reporting requirements.
We have added questions to surveys. We have required annual reports on
the status of sex offense investigations. We have required developments
of strategies to hold leadership accountable. We have chartered special
panels, commissions, and advisory committees to address this problem,
and we have enacted their recommendations.
We have made scores of small adjustments, and they have just not
moved the needle. The most recent annual report from the Department of
Defense proves it. Reports of sexual assault have increased virtually
every single year and remain at record highs, while prosecution and
conviction rates have declined. The current system is not working. We
need real reform, and we have the legislation to do it.
In 2014, I asked for a vote on this bill, and it earned majority
support--55 votes--but it was filibustered. In 2015, again I earned
majority support, but it was filibustered. I asked for a vote in 2016,
2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, and I was denied every single time.
I am again asking on behalf of servicemembers who do so much for this
country, who will sacrifice themselves and their lives for this Nation,
and on behalf of the bipartisan, filibuster-proof majority of Senators
who support this legislation and want to enact this reform, and this
vote is being denied again.
How long must our servicemembers wait for real reform? How long must
they wait for a criminal justice system that is worthy of their
sacrifice? There is no persuasive argument for the need to allow more
time to consider this legislation in committee. The committee has had
nearly a decade to consider it. Most Members of this body have had
years to consider it, and those who have had the least time to consider
it, our newest Members, have already seen the need for reform. Nine out
of ten new Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, including the two
new members of the Armed Services Committee, have already cosponsored
this bill.
This bill is now supported by 64 bipartisan Senators who deserve to
have the opportunity to cast a vote for this important bill. We don't
have to take the time for another incremental step. It is time to bring
this vote to the floor.
I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be determined by the
majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate
Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S.
1520 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that there be 2 hours
for debate equally divided in the usual form; and that upon the use or
yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the bill with no intervening
action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, for the reasons that I articulated last
evening, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I continue to advocate for the
ability of this body to vote up or down on this bill. This is an
important moment in our Nation's history. This is a generational change
whose time has come.
Previously, when such important reforms were needed, such as the
don't ask, don't tell repeal, they were brought directly to the floor.
It is time to bring this to the floor.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________