[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 25, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3413-S3416]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    ENDLESS FRONTIER ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hassan). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, before I begin, let me just say a 
word of thanks to my two colleagues from Oklahoma for this moment that 
we have had on the Senate floor.
  I was privileged to be waiting to give my remarks to hear them speak, 
and I thought this was a wonderful moment. We have our challenges 
around here, but if we had more moments like this, we would get through 
our challenges better. I congratulate and thank both of my colleagues.


                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Madam President, there is a scheme afoot, a scheme I will be talking 
about in weeks ahead--a long-running, rightwing scheme to capture the 
Supreme Court.
  Special interests are behind the scheme. They control it through dark 
money--hundreds of millions of dollars in anonymous hidden spending. We 
will dwell in later speeches on how the scheme operates.
  This first speech seeks its origins. The scheme is secret, and 
because of its secrecy, it is hard to know exactly where the story 
should begin.
  The one place you could begin is with a corporate lawyer--the 
Virginian Lewis Powell. An authorized biography of Lewis Powell by his 
fellow Virginian, renowned UVA law professor John Jeffries, reveals 
Powell to be a tough and incisive lawyer, willing and able to make 
sharp, even harsh, decisions, but a man of courtly and decent matters, 
well settled in the White male social and corporate elite of Richmond, 
VA. There he developed his legal and business career through the 1950s 
and 1960s.
  A successful corporate law practice often entailed joining corporate 
boards. Richmond was a home to Big Tobacco, and Powell's legal career 
led him on to Richmond's tobacco and other corporate boards.
  Richmond was Virginia's sibling rival to Charlottesville, which could 
boast of Thomas Jefferson's nearby Monticello, his renowned University 
of Virginia, and all the cultural and academic vibrancy bubbling around 
that great university. Richmond--Richmond was the working sibling, 
hosting the State's capitol and its political offices and serving as 
its corporate center.
  Powell was an ambitious Richmond corporate lawyer, and the turbulence 
of the 1960s was broadly distressing to America's corporate elite. The 
civil rights movement disrupted Jim Crow across the South, drawing out 
and exposing to the Nation the racist violence that had long enforced 
the social and legal norm of segregation and upsetting America's all-
White corporate suites and boardrooms.
  Anti-war protesters derided Dow Chemical Company's manufacture of 
napalm and scorned the entire military-industrial complex. Women's 
rights protesters challenged all-male corporate management structures. 
The environmental movement protested chemical leaks, toxic products, 
and the poisons belching from corporate smokestacks. Public health 
groups began linking the tobacco industry to deadly illnesses, and lead 
paint companies to brain damage in children.
  Ralph Nader criticized America's car companies for making automobiles 
that were ``Unsafe at Any Speed'' and causing carnage on America's 
highways. America's anxious corporate elite saw Congress respond with 
new and unwelcome laws and saw courts respond with big and unwelcome 
verdicts. Something had to be done.
  Powell's prominence in Virginia's civic, legal, social, and corporate 
circles had brought him attention in Washington, DC. And a new client 
of his, the Washington, DC-based U.S. Chamber of Commerce, asked Powell 
for his help. The Chamber commissioned from Powell a secret report, a 
strategic plan for reasserting corporate authority over the political 
arena.
  The secret Powell report, titled ``Attack on American Free Enterprise 
System,'' was telling. It was telling, first, for the apocalyptic 
certainty of its tone. Powell's opening sentence was: ``No thoughtful 
person can question that the American system is under broad attack.'' 
By that, he meant the American economic system, but that assertion was 
footnoted with the parallel assertion that--and I am quoting him 
again--``The American political system of democracy under the rule of 
law is also under attack.''
  This was, Powell asserted, ``quite new in [American history].''
  ``Business and the enterprise system are in deep trouble,'' he wrote, 
``and the hour is late.''
  The secret Powell report was an alarm.
  The report is populated with liberal bogeymen: the bombastic lawyer 
William Kunstler; the popular author of ``The Greening of America,'' 
Charles Reich; the consumer advocate Ralph Nader, whom Powell said 
there should be, and I am quoting here, ``no hesitation to attack.''
  Against them, Powell set establishment defenders like columnist 
Stewart Alsop and conservative economist Milton Friedman. Powell 
cloaked the concerns of corporate America as concerns of ``individual 
freedom,'' a rhetorical framework for corporate political power that 
persists to this day.
  The battle lines were drawn. Indeed, the language in the Powell 
report is the language of battle: ``attack,'' ``frontal assault,'' 
``rifle shots,'' ``warfare.'' The recommendations are to end compromise 
and appeasement--his words: ``compromise'' and ``appeasement''--to 
understand that, as he said, ``the ultimate issue may be survival''--
and he underlined the word ``survival''

[[Page S3414]]

in his report--and to call for ``the wisdom, ingenuity and resources of 
American business to be marshaled against those who would destroy it.''
  Well, for this, you had to have a plan, and the Powell plan was to go 
big. Here is what he said:
  ``Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and 
implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of 
years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, 
and in the political power available only through united action and 
national organizations.''
  Powell recommended a propaganda effort staffed with scholars and 
speakers, a propaganda effort to which American business should devote 
``10 percent of its total advertising budget,'' including an effort to 
review and critique textbooks, especially in economics, political 
science, and sociology.
  ``National television networks should be monitored in the same way 
that textbooks should be kept under constant surveillance,'' he said. 
Corporate America should aggressively insist on the right to be heard, 
on ``equal time,'' and corporate America should be ready to deploy, and 
I am quoting him here, ``whatever degree of pressure--publicly and 
privately--may be necessary.'' This would be ``a long road,'' Powell 
warned, ``and not for the fainthearted.''
  In his section entitled ``The Neglected Political Arena,'' Powell 
recommended using political influence to stem ``the stampedes by 
politicians to support any legislation related to `consumerism' or to 
the `environment.' '' And, yes, Powell put the word ``environment'' in 
derogatory quote marks in the original.
  ``Political power,'' Powell wrote, ``is necessary; . . . [it] must be 
assiduously cultivated; and . . . when necessary . . . must be used 
aggressively and with determination.'' He concluded that ``it is 
essential [to] be far more aggressive than in the past,'' with ``no 
hesitation to attack,'' ``not the slightest hesitation to press 
vigorously in all political arenas,'' and no ``reluctance to penalize 
politically those who oppose'' the corporate effort. In a nutshell, no 
holds barred.
  And then came the section of the secret report that may have launched 
the scheme to capture the court. It is called ``Neglected Opportunity 
in the Courts.'' This section focused on what Powell called 
``exploiting judicial action.'' He called it an ``area of vast 
opportunity.''
  He wrote: ``Under our constitutional system, especially with an 
activist-minded Supreme Court''--I will intervene to say, of course, we 
have today, as a result of the scheme, the most activist-minded Supreme 
Court in American history, but back to his quote--``especially with an 
activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important 
instrument for social, economic and political change.''
  Powell urged that the Chamber of Commerce become the voice of 
American business in the courts, with a ``highly competent staff of 
lawyers,'' if ``business is willing to provide the funds.'' He 
concludes: ``The opportunity merits the necessary effort.''
  The secret report may well have been the single most consequential 
piece of writing that Lewis Powell ever did in a long career of 
consequential writings. The tone and content of the report actually 
explain a lot of decisions in his future career. Yet this secret report 
received no attention--not even a passing mention--in Professor 
Jeffries' detailed, authoritative, and authorized Powell biography.
  The secret chamber report was not disclosed to the U.S. Senate in 
Senate confirmation proceedings when, shortly after delivering his 
secret report to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Lewis Powell was 
nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon.
  The secret report was dated August 23, 1971. Two months later, on 
October 22, Nixon nominated Powell to the Supreme Court. Lewis Powell 
was sworn in as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on January 7, 
1972, less than 6 months after this secret report was delivered to the 
chamber.
  To be continued.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                  Safeguarding American Innovation Act

  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Safeguarding American Innovation Act. This is legislation that has been 
included in the substitute amendment to the bill we are working on this 
week, called the Endless Frontier Act, or as it has now been called, 
the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act.
  Well, if our goal is to increase U.S. competitiveness and encourage 
more U.S. innovation, we have to not only invest in research and 
innovation, we have to be sure that we are keeping our investment in 
research and intellectual property from being taken by our competitors 
and used against us. That is what this legislation does.
  By the way, that is just common sense, or so you would think, but 
that is not what we found during a bipartisan investigation during the 
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Instead, during a yearlong 
inquiry, we uncovered that our government and our research institutions 
over the last couple of decades have permitted China to take advantage 
of a lax U.S. approach to safeguarding our taxpayer-funded innovation, 
be it in our college campuses or in our research labs, nor was law 
enforcement, principally the FBI, doing anything significant to combat 
this threat. In fact, at our hearing on the report about 18 months ago, 
the FBI admitted in sworn testimony that they have been asleep at the 
switch, essentially.
  Our PSI investigation detailed the rampant theft of U.S. taxpayer-
funded research and intellectual property by China by way of their so-
called China recruitment programs, mainly the Thousand Talents Plan. 
China uses these plans to systematically find promising researchers and 
promising research that China is interested in, and they recruit those 
researchers.
  These programs have not been subtle. The Thousand Talents Plan is 
perhaps the best understood of these programs, although there are 
actually a couple hundred of them. Our PSI investigation documented how 
the Thousand Talents Plan was used to target and steal taxpayer-funded 
research and IP for at least two decades in this country, and much of 
that research and innovation was taken from our labs to China and went 
directly into fueling the rise of the Chinese economy and the Chinese 
military.
  While this is what China has done and continues to do, this is really 
about us. We have to get our own house in order. Specifically, we found 
that the Chinese Government has targeted promising U.S.-based research 
and researchers. Often, this research is funded by U.S. taxpayers. We 
spend about $150 billion a year on taxpayer-funded research in places 
like the National Institutes of Health, the National Science 
Foundation, and the Department of Energy for basic science research. 
And with this legislation we are talking about tonight on the floor, 
the Endless Frontier Act, we are talking about a huge increase in the 
amount of Federal spending for this kind of research.
  The annual $150 billion that has gone out over the years has been a 
good investment of taxpayer dollars, I believe. Why? Because it has led 
to some amazing things, from cures for everything from viruses to 
particular kinds of cancer, to technologies that support our defense 
base, to manufacturing technology that has made us more efficient as a 
country. But it is not good if the U.S. taxpayer is paying for this 
good research, and then China is taking it to fuel their own economic 
and military rise.
  China has not just stolen some of the research funded by U.S. 
taxpayers; China has actually paid these grant recipients to take their 
research over to China at Chinese universities--again, universities 
affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party. They have been very clever 
about it. They want to be sure that China is a stronger competitor 
against us, and they take the research delivered from the United States 
to what is referred to as shadow

[[Page S3415]]

labs in China, where they replicate the research.

  Rather than pointing the finger at China, we ought to be looking at 
our own government and our own institutions and doing a better job with 
the things we can control. Again, let's get our own house in order. We 
have made some progress in doing that.
  Following our November 2019 PSI investigation I talked about and the 
report we issued, in December of 2020, John Demers, the Assistant 
Attorney General for National Security and head of the Justice 
Department's China Initiative, announced that more than 1,000 
researchers affiliated with China's military left the United States 
following a crackdown on recipients of taxpayer-funded Federal grants 
concealing their affiliation with China's Thousand Talents Program. One 
thousand researchers left the United States.
  That news followed multiple guilty pleas and a string of arrests of 
academics affiliated with American universities for alleged crimes 
related to concealing their participation in China's talent recruitment 
programs while accepting American taxpayer funds and taking research to 
China.
  After two decades of allowing this activity to go on, over the past 
18 months, we have finally begun to crack down. In my own State of 
Ohio, in my home State, there have been some researchers who have been 
arrested. However, as our investigation found and law enforcement told 
us, the Federal Government is limited in the actions they can take 
under current law. It is our responsibility in Congress to change that.
  All of the arrests in connection with the Thousand Talents Plan have 
been related to peripheral financial crimes, like wire fraud and tax 
evasion, not the core issue of the conflict of commitment, conflict of 
interest, the taking of American taxpayer research, and also taking 
money from China. Why? Because it is not currently a crime to knowingly 
hide foreign research funding on a Federal grant application, as an 
example. In other words, if you are performing research funded by the 
U.S. taxpayer and also being paid by China to do the same research, 
there is no law that states you have to disclose that funding from 
China. That is just wrong.
  Since our report, the National Institutes of Health has started to 
require that that information be disclosed. The NIH is alone so far in 
requiring that. But even there, there is still no law requiring 
disclosure.
  The arrests made since our PSI report have not been about that core 
issue of researchers hiding foreign funding from China and stealing our 
research. So we need to change the laws so we can give our law 
enforcement community the tools they need to go do the job that all of 
us expect is being done.
  The Safeguarding American Innovation Act goes directly to the root of 
this problem and makes it punishable by law to knowingly fail to 
disclose foreign funding on Federal grant applications. While this is a 
criminal statute, it is really about transparency, which is a core 
tenet of the U.S. research enterprise.
  Our bill also makes other important changes informed by our 
investigation. It requires the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, in 
the executive branch to streamline and coordinate grant-making between 
the Federal Agencies so there is more continuity, accountability, and 
coordination when it comes to tracking the billions of dollars of 
taxpayer-funded grant money that is being distributed.
  Again, the underlying legislation here in the Chamber tonight is 
about more money going into research. Let's be sure that there is 
transparency and that we know how it is being distributed. We found in 
our investigation that this kind of coordination and transparency was 
sorely lacking and long overdue.
  Our legislation also allows the Department of State to deny visas to 
foreign researchers coming to the United States who they know are going 
to exploit the openness of our research enterprise to acquire sensitive 
and emerging technologies against the national security interests of 
the United States and to benefit an adversarial foreign government.
  This may surprise you, but the State Department can't do that now. It 
is a loophole in the law. In finalizing our language for the 
substitute, we worked very closely with career State Department 
employees, who were desperate to get this authority to keep, say, 
members from the People's Liberation Army, who are definitely connected 
with the Chinese military, from coming over here and attending 
conferences where sensitive, export controlled technology is being 
talked about and distributed.
  Our bill also requires foreign institutions and universities to tell 
the State Department whether a foreign researcher will have access to 
export controlled technologies and also to demonstrate to the State 
Department that they have a plan to prevent unauthorized access to any 
export controlled technologies at the research institution
  That is really important. It seems like basic information that the 
State Department would get here, that would have been provided all 
along, but it hasn't been. Providing this information as part of the 
visa process should also help streamline the process for the State 
Department and for these research institutions. I think it is good for 
both to make sure that this is clear and we know what the rules are.
  We also require increased transparency in reporting foreign gifts and 
contracts at our colleges and our universities. Those schools are now 
going to need to report any foreign gift or contract worth $50,000 or 
more. The current threshold is $250,000. More transparency is a good 
thing.
  We also empower the Department of Education to work with these 
universities and research institutions to ensure that this can be 
complied with in a way that doesn't create undue redtape and 
expenditures. That is not the idea. The idea is to have transparency 
but have it be something that is efficient. But we also allow the 
Department of Education for the first time to fine universities that 
repeatedly fail to disclose these gifts. We have actually found that 
about 70 percent of universities weren't following the current law, 
partly because there was no fine. There was really no accountability.
  All of the changes that I have outlined are necessary to help keep 
America on the cutting edge. In order to be globally competitive, we 
have to be more effective at pushing back against the specific threat 
from China and from other nations, like Russia, Iran, and North Korea, 
looking to steal our research and our intellectual property.
  Until we start to clean up our own house and take a firmer stance 
against foreign influences here in this country trying to take our 
research, we are going to keep losing the innovations that we create 
here, and we will be less competitive. That is why the Safeguarding 
American Innovation Act is so important to be included in this bill.
  I will finish by noting that this has been truly a nonpartisan 
effort--not just bipartisan but nonpartisan--from the start. We wanted 
to ensure that, in a thoughtful, smart, and effective way, we were 
responding to the very real threat that we identified from China and 
other foreign adversaries.
  I want to commend my partner in our PSI investigation and cosponsor 
of our legislation, Senator Tom Carper. I also want to thank the 
Presiding Officer tonight for her role in this, for her contributions 
and her support. I also want to say that I appreciate Senators Peters 
and Schumer and their staff for working with us to finalize the 
language, as well as the State Department and other officials from the 
Trump administration and the Biden administration who provided 
important assistance.
  Safeguarding American innovation is always a good idea, but it is 
particularly important in the context of the legislation before us that 
provides exceptionally large amounts of Federal money for research to 
make us more competitive. I support that research, but I don't want the 
taxpayer funds to go in the front door and then to have the research go 
out the back door to China or other adversaries. That is not what this 
should be about, and thanks to this legislation being included in this 
law, I feel confident that it will not be about that.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                                S. 1260

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, in a moment, I will file cloture on 
both

[[Page S3416]]

the substitute amendment of the competition bill and on the motion to 
proceed to the House-passed legislation to create an independent 
commission to investigate and report on the attack of January 6, 
setting up a potential vote this week.
  On the competition bill, this legislation is the product of at least 
half a dozen Senate committees, working for months--months--in a 
bipartisan way. That means that every single Member of the Senate has 
had their fingerprints on it in one manner or another.
  The Senate has been making great progress so far this week. To borrow 
an expression that might appeal to my colleague and partner from 
Indiana, Senator Young, we are approaching the final straightaway of 
the race. We have completed a very efficient series of votes on six 
amendments this afternoon, five of which were sponsored by Republicans. 
That is in addition to four amendment votes we have already held and 
literally dozens--dozens--of bipartisan amendments that were added to 
the bill before it even reached the floor.
  This is regular order in action. Members on both sides have clamored 
that we bring bills to the floor, debate them, and ask for amendments. 
That is what is happening here. This is a bipartisan bill that came out 
of committees with overwhelming votes--21 to 1 in Foreign Relations and 
22 to 4 in Commerce, with a lot of bipartisan input in both committees 
and throughout--and now we are debating it on the floor.
  I believe the depth of bipartisanship on this bill reveals two 
things: one, just how much of a hunger there is on both sides of the 
aisle to tackle the issue of American leadership in the 21st century. 
It also shows a hunger to work in a bipartisan way, and we hope that 
our colleagues will understand that as we seek now to invoke cloture on 
the bill after we do several more amendments.
  With the finish line in sight, we need to continue working together 
to see this bill through. As I said, we will consider a few more 
amendments tomorrow and Thursday, including a managers' amendment, 
before final passage. If both sides continue to work in good faith to 
schedule amendment votes, which has been the hallmark so far, there is 
no reason we can't finish the competition bill by the end of the week. 
And we will look for a signal from our Republican friends that, when we 
cooperate, we will move forward and not move to block or delay 
unnecessarily.
  Now, of this bill, again, I cannot say how important it is to the 
future of America. Investing in science and innovation has been a 
hallmark of why this country has led the world in economic growth, in 
good-paying jobs, in creating a brighter, sunnier, happier America. Our 
failure to invest could lead to a real decline--a cloudiness over 
America and its future. We have to move forward, and that is why this 
bill has gotten such great support. This is not a minor bill. Just 
because there is not partisan fighting doesn't mean it is not one of 
the most important bills we have passed in a very long time, and we 
will look back in history and say that this was a moment when America 
got a grip back on itself and moved forward after several years of 
languishing, at best.


                          January 6 Commission

  I am also going to move to file cloture on the motion to proceed to 
the House-passed legislation to create an independent commission to 
investigate and report on the attack of January 6, setting up a 
potential vote this week. We all know the commission is an urgent, 
necessary idea to safeguard our democracy. What happened on January 6 
was a travesty--a travesty. It risked America in ways we haven't seen 
in decades, maybe even in our history altogether.
  In the wake of January 6, unfortunately, too many Republicans in both 
Chambers have been trying to rewrite history and sweep the despicable 
attack on our democracy under the rug. If people believe the Big Lie--
if they believe that this election was not on the level, spread by the 
Big Lie of Donald Trump and his legions in the press--our democracy 
erodes. At the core of this democracy is the belief that we vote; the 
process is fair; and then whoever is fairly elected we respect as our 
leader. That has not happened for the first time in a long time.
  I so respect our two Republican colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle who say they will vote for this proposal. I hope many more will. 
We have to get it passed. Each Member of the Senate is going to have to 
stand up and decide: Are you on the side of truth and accountability or 
are you on the side of Donald Trump and the Big Lie?
  We cannot let this lie fester. We must get at the truth. We must 
restore faith in this grand, wonderful, beautiful, evolving 
experiment--the greatest democracy that has ever been seen on Earth. We 
can't let that go away. By sweeping all of this under the rug and by 
having so many people believe the lies, we could see the Sun begin to 
set on America. I hope that doesn't happen. I pray that doesn't happen. 
I don't believe it will happen because I believe we will rise to the 
occasion and get at the truth.


                           Order of Business

  Madam President, now I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate 
resumes consideration of S. 1260 on Wednesday, May 26, the following 
amendments be called up and reported by number: Durbin, 2014; Kennedy, 
1710; Sullivan, 1911; further, that at 12 noon tomorrow, Wednesday, May 
26, the Senate vote in relation to the Sullivan amendment and at 2:30 
in relation to the Durbin and Kennedy amendments, with no amendments in 
order to these amendments prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, 
with 60 affirmative votes required for the adoption, with the exception 
of the Sullivan amendment, and 2 minutes of debate equally divided 
prior to each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Schumer 
     substitute amendment No. 1502 to Calendar No. 58, S. 1260, a 
     bill 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.
         Charles E. Schumer, Jacky Rosen, Patrick J. Leahy, Brian 
           Schatz, Richard J. Durbin, Benjamin L. Cardin, Robert 
           P. Casey, Jr., Christopher A. Coons, Gary C. Peters, 
           Angus S. King, Jr., Sheldon Whitehouse, Chris Van 
           Hollen, Maria Cantwell, Mazie K. Hirono, Tammy 
           Duckworth, Tina Smith, Ben Ray Lujan.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 58, 
     S. 1260, a bill 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.
         Charles E. Schumer, Jacky Rosen, Patrick J. Leahy, Brian 
           Schatz, Richard J. Durbin, Benjamin L. Cardin, Robert 
           P. Casey, Jr., Christopher A. Coons, Gary C. Peters, 
           Angus S. King, Jr., Sheldon Whitehouse, Chris Van 
           Hollen, Maria Cantwell, Mazie K. Hirono, Tammy 
           Duckworth, Tina Smith, Ben Ray Lujan.

                          ____________________