[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 92 (Wednesday, May 26, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3470-S3477]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
ENDLESS FRONTIER ACT--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 1260, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative 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. 2014, 1710 and 1911 to Amendment No. 1502
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the following
amendments will be called up and reported by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an
amendment numbered 2014 to amendment No. 1502.
The amendment is as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 2014
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the allocation of
Special Drawing Rights by the International Monetary Fund to help other
countries procure COVID-19 vaccines and protect against the economic
instability caused by the COVID-19 pandemic)
At the end of subtitle A of title II of division C, add
the following:
SEC. 3219L. SENSE OF SENATE ON ALLOCATION OF SPECIAL DRAWING
RIGHTS BY INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND RELATING
TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC.
It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) it is in the strategic interests of the United States
to help ensure that COVID-19 vaccines are available to other
countries, particularly poorer countries with limited
resources, not only as a timely live-saving and humanitarian
measure, but also as the best way to protect hard-fought
gains made against the pandemic in the United States;
(2) the people of the United States will never be fully
protected against the COVID-19 pandemic until the pandemic is
also brought under control through vaccination around the
world;
(3) the release of Special Drawing Rights by the
International Monetary Fund, as was done after the 2008
global economic crisis, is a no-cost way to help poorer
countries procure COVID-19 vaccines and protect against the
instability caused by a severe economic downturn;
(4) helping protect against another global economic
meltdown by releasing Special Drawing Rights is also a way to
help protect United States export jobs at home, and why the
move is supported by leaders of United States businesses and
labor organizations; and
(5) any allocations of Special Drawing Rights approved by
the International Monetary Fund to help with the purchase of
COVID-19 vaccines and stem the worst economic impact of the
pandemic should include ongoing efforts to discourage
countries that are allies of the United States from
exchanging Special Drawing Rights for hard currencies with
rogue countries and follow-up by the International Monetary
Fund to audit how such allocations were spent.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 1710 to amendment No. 1502.
The amendment is as follows
AMENDMENT NO. 1710
(Purpose: To prohibit allocations of Special Drawing Rights at the
International Monetary Fund for perpetrators of genocide and state
sponsors of terrorism without congressional authorization)
At the end of title III of division C, add the following:
SEC. 3314. PROHIBITION ON ALLOCATIONS OF SPECIAL DRAWING
RIGHTS AT INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND FOR
PERPETRATORS OF GENOCIDE AND STATE SPONSORS OF
TERRORISM WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.
Section 6(b) of the Special Drawing Rights Act (22 U.S.C.
286q(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Unless Congress by law authorizes such action,
neither the President nor any person or agency shall on
behalf of the United States vote to allocate Special Drawing
Rights under article XVIII, sections 2 and 3, of the Articles
of Agreement of the Fund to a member country of the Fund, if
the government of the member country has--
``(A) committed genocide at any time during the 10-year
period ending with the date of the vote; or
``(B) been determined by the Secretary of State, as of the
date of the enactment of the Strategic Competition Act of
2021, to have repeatedly provided support for acts of
international terrorism, for purposes of--
``(i) section 1754(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Export Control Reform
Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4813(c)(1)(A)(i));
``(ii) section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2371);
``(iii) section 40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2780(d)); or
``(iv) any other provision of law.''.
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Sullivan] proposes an
amendment numbered 1911 to amendment No. 1502.
The amendment is as follows:
[[Page S3471]]
amendment no. 1911
(Purpose: To require institutions of higher education to submit
attestations on freedom of speech)
At the end of title V of division B, add the following:
SEC. 2528. FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARD.
(a) In General.--Consistent with the First Amendment to the
Constitution for public institutions, and in compliance with
stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech for
private institutions, and all applicable Federal laws,
regulations, and policies, entities receiving awards under
title I or title II of this division shall--
(1) protect free speech, viewpoint diversity, the free
exchange of ideas, and academic freedom, including extramural
speech of staff and students;
(2) protect religious liberty; and
(3) prohibit discrimination, consistent with titles IV and
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000c et seq;
2000d et seq.).
(b) Attestation.--
(1) In general.--An institution of higher education that
submits an application for Federal funding under title I or
II of this division, or an amendment made by title I or II of
this division, shall provide to the Director, as part of such
application--
(A) an intra-institutional attestation that the institution
is in compliance with the requirements under subsection (a);
and
(B) information on the actions taken by the institution to
ensure such compliance.
(2) Annual submission.--An institution shall not be
required to submit an attestation under paragraph (1) more
than once per year.
(c) Director Report.--The Director shall annually transmit
to Congress and make public on the website of the Foundation
the attestations submitted under subsection (b).
(d) Office of Inspector General Report.--Not later than one
year after the date of enactment of this division, and every
2 years thereafter, the Office of Inspector General of the
Foundation shall submit a report to Congress that contains a
review of the efforts of the Foundation to ensure that all
recipients of an award from the Foundation are aware of and
in compliance with all Federal requirements for such an
award, including the requirements under subsection (a).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Remembering John Warner
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to mourn the passing of a
statesman, a patriot, a mentor, a friend, and someone who loved this
institution as much as anybody I know. It was the passing late last
night of Senator John Warner.
I am joined here by my friend of 39 years--now maybe 40--Tim Kaine,
and we are going to go back and forth a little bit as we talk about
someone who played an enormously important role in both of our lives,
both, I can say, on a personal basis and on a political basis, and we
will get some of the basic facts out.
John Warner was 94 years old when he passed. He was born in
Washington, DC, into a family from Amherst, VA. He joined the U.S. Navy
at the age of 18 in the waning days of World War II. He served from
1945 to 1946. He left the military and then rejoined the Marines in
1950, when the Korean war started.
After he left the military, he worked for the U.S. attorney, worked
in private practice, and then got involved in Republican politics in
Virginia at that point.
I think Senator Kaine will probably speak to this. Being involved in
Republican politics in the late fifties and early sixties was the
progressive party in Virginia.
He ended up serving President Nixon as Secretary of the Navy, and he
was the head of the Bicentennial. Then, in 1978, in a campaign that Tim
will probably comment on, he got elected to the U.S. Senate, where he
then served for five terms--30 years.
John Warner was a remarkable guy. He was someone--and I say this,
again, respectfully--who looked the part, who sounded the part. He
could say things that, if they came out of my mouth or even somebody's
as eloquent as Senator Kaine, they might sound a little over the top.
Coming out of John Warner, they always sounded senatorial, thoughtful,
and pretty darned cool.
How I got to know John was in really kind of an unusual way. I was a
little bit active in Democratic politics in the late eighties, early
nineties. Then I had the audacity in 1996 to actually run against John
Warner. By the way, you know, John Warner v. Mark Warner managed to
confuse the hell out of Virginians. The takeaway from that campaign--
and Tim has had to hear this story many times, and John always used to
tell the story as well--is that we had a bumper sticker from the
campaign that simply read--and it was our one good idea--``Mark, not
John.'' It is the honest-to-goodness truth.
I was down in Danville one day, which is near the North Carolina
border, and got in the car, and somebody saw the bumper sticker as I
was trying to shake hands, for I was not that well-known. He looked at
me, and he said: Excuse me. Is that a biblical reference?
There was no divine intervention. The right Warner won that race, and
John Warner got reelected.
The thing that I didn't understand then but that I understand better
now is, after you run against somebody, even in a respectful campaign,
you bear some scars, some bruises, whatever. You know, I got really
close to John Warner in terms of that race. I almost beat him.
Afterward, I was thinking about continuing and maybe trying one more
time, and I thought about running for Governor. John Warner was willing
to become my friend. I got elected Governor. He was a Republican, and I
am a Democrat, and anything I tried to do as Governor that was hard,
like a transportation referendum up here, John Warner was right there
by my side, saying: We are going to do what is right for Virginia.
We had a battle in which our budget was way out of whack, and I had a
2-to-1 Republican legislature. I can still remember sneaking him into
the State capitol so the press corps wouldn't see him, and he got up on
the third floor where the press room was. In a Zeus-like moment, he
said: Politics be damned. We are going to do what is right for
Virginia.
The truth was, we ended up fixing that challenge, and Virginia got
named the best managed State and the best State for business, and we
made record investments in education. I am not sure we would have
gotten there if John Warner had not been willing to use his own
personal political capital, but this was at a time when everybody was
signing those crazy no-new-tax pledges, and John Warner said: Politics
be damned. Let's do what is right for Virginia.
Tim will talk, probably, a little bit about this. I mean, his role as
chair of the Armed Services Committee was legendary, and there is not a
sailor, soldier, marine, or airman anywhere in Virginia--for that
matter, anywhere in the country--who doesn't owe a debt of gratitude to
John Warner.
I live in Alexandria, close to the river. I look out my window each
day and see the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which, for those of us who live
in this region, was a big bottleneck way in decay. How John Warner got
$1.2 billion for that bridge when it was way down the list in terms of
getting refurbished was maybe a story that can't be told on the Senate
floor.
As John got older, I always said--you know, as I had tried my one
time against him--if you want to stay in this seat, I think you can
stay as long as you want. In 2008, he decided he would go out at the
top of his game. I would go see him, and I know Senator Kaine would, as
well, to always ask for his advice and counsel.
I have two more quick stories, and then I will yield to my friend
Senator Kaine, and we can go back and forth a little bit.
In 2014, I was so extraordinarily honored when John Warner--
Republican senior Senator John Warner--endorsed Mark Warner for the
U.S. Senate. That kind of thing doesn't happen in politics too much
these days. I can remember, up and down through the Shenandoah Valley,
there was one trip on which Senator Kaine and I were campaigning with
John. He was, you know, at that point already in kind of his eighties,
with a walking stick. Let me assure you, we had both been former
Governors and both had kind of thought we knew our stuff, but whenever
John Warner was in the room, we were the junior guys and followed his
lead.
As a matter of fact, in this last campaign, where he endorsed me
again, there was one fundraiser we went to. He introduced me. I did my
little talk. Then he kind of took his walking stick and kind of whacked
me on the shins and said, ``Sit down, Mark. I've got some more to
say,'' and got up and spent 30-plus minutes telling old stories of how
the Senate used to work. I have never been at a fundraiser where people
got more of their money's worth than that night.
[[Page S3472]]
John was also very, very disturbed and concerned about where our
country was headed, the lack of respect for the rule of law, what was
happening to his beloved Republican Party. But he always kept that
burning sense of optimism.
I saw him 4 or 5 weeks ago, pretty frail, but he still, oftentimes
with a pocket square and looking like he had just stepped out of a Hunt
Country magazine, but he was asking about how we could get the Senate
back on track and how we could always continue to put our country
first.
I want to say a couple of other things, but let me yield at this
point to my dear friend Senator Kaine.
We in Virginia were blessed, and our country was blessed, to have
him, and I am going to miss him horribly. But I do know this much: When
I am wrestling with an issue, I often will think: What would John
Warner do? And if I follow that mantra, chances are I am doing the
right thing for Virginia and the right thing for our country.
I will miss him greatly, and I would be happy to yield to my friend
and colleague, the other Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Well, thank you.
Mr. President, I want to thank my best friend in politics, Senator
Mark Warner. And I just realized something. John Warner defeated in an
election my best friend in politics, and John Warner also defeated in
an election my political hero, my father-in-law, Linwood Holton, who
was Governor of Virginia from 1970 to 1974.
So I want to talk a little bit about John's effect on me personally
and then also his great partnership when I was mayor of Richmond and
Governor and into the Senate, and then I will hand it back to our
senior Senator for his comments.
When John Warner came out of the Pacific at the end of World War II,
he went back to complete his studies at Washington and Lee. He was a
surface ship guy in the Pacific Navy and went back to Washington and
Lee in Lexington. My father-in-law, Linwood Holton, was a submariner in
the Pacific during World War II and also came back to complete his
studies at Washington and Lee. John Warner and Linwood Holton, my
father-in-law, met in 1946 at W&L, and they were part of the same
fraternity, and John Warner used to always say that my father-in-law
broke a paddle across his backside in a fraternity hazing ritual.
But those friends began a friendship that went to 75 years--75 years
of friendship. My father-in-law is still alive. He will be 98 in
September, and it was an amazing friendship. They worked on projects
together.
As Senator Warner mentioned, they had to build the Republican Party
in Virginia. We were a one-party State, dominated by the Byrd machine
Dixiecrats, and they had to build the Republican Party with just a
handful of others.
My father-in-law became the first Republican-elected Governor of
Virginia, elected in 1969, at the time that John was Secretary of the
Navy.
One day, a Navy ship, moored on the Elizabeth River, broke free and
ran into and destroyed a bridge.
And my father-in-law called: Mr. Secretary.
Yes, Governor.
One of your ships has broken one of my bridges.
They had so much fun together as friends.
In 1978, they ran against each other to be in this body--a four-way
Republican nominating convention. Neither of them won. Dick Obenshain
won that convention. John Warner was second, my father-in-law was
third, and someone else was fourth.
Dick Obenshain was killed in a plane crash, and it was unclear how it
would sort out and who would be the nominee. My father-in-law threw his
support behind John Warner. John Warner got the nomination. John Warner
ran and then became the longest serving Senator in Virginia history,
with 30 years.
When I married Anne in 1984, I was adopted into the John Warner
friendship society because of being part of the Holton family. We were
friends, and I enjoyed him. I admired him, and I saw his work here.
I came into public life as a city councilman and mayor in Richmond,
and John Warner: I have to produce for the mayor of my capital city.
I was a young whippersnapper. I was mayor when I was--I think I was--
39, and by now John Warner was in his mid-seventies, but he would
produce for the capital city.
And then, as Mark knows, because he had the same relationship when he
was Governor--I was Governor, and I was about 45 or 46, and by now John
Warner was nearly 80--John Warner had an old-fashioned sense: You do
what the Governor says. There are two Senators, but there is only one
Governor.
I treated him like he was the senior partner, but he kind of treated
you, when you were Governor, as, sort of, ``Well, we have to produce
for the Governor.''
We were working on the Metro Silver Line project, the rail to Dulles,
and the project during the George W. Bush administration was about to
be unplugged from life support, after decades of work, and John Warner
helped us get in and save that project.
A tremendous friend, a tremendous supporter, but I will say this and
then hand maybe to Senator Reed, who might want to say a word, and then
back to Senator Warner, because I think Senator Warner might want to be
our closer here.
I got to know a new side of John Warner when I came to the Senate. I
mean, I felt like we were like best friends and family friends, and he
helped me when I was mayor and Governor. I came to the Senate in 2013,
and he had been gone for 4 years. But I started to meet people whom I
didn't know--John McCain and Carl Levin and Jack Reed and so many
others whom I did not know before I was here--and then I really learned
about John Warner.
I learned about his service as the chair and ranking of the Armed
Services Committee. I learned about the fact that he was always in the
middle of whatever gang was trying to do something good. I learned
about his love for this institution. I learned about his love for his
fellow Senators.
I was on a ticket with one of those fellow Senators, Senator Hillary
Clinton, and stood with John Warner when he came out to endorse us, and
he talked with such depth about working together with Senator Clinton
on the Armed Services Committee.
I asked John Warner to come to lunch with me one day in the Senate
Dining Room, and it was like I had brought the Pope in. I mean, we sat
down and everyone--all the staff, everybody working in the Senate
Dining Room, all the Senators and their families--were coming over to
talk to John Warner because they loved him so much. And one of the
reasons they loved him is they knew how much he loved the institution.
There is so much more I could say, but I just want to tell one more
thing. John and I, at some point during my first term, were talking
about the Senate, and we were both regretting that the Senate of today
was not the Senate that John Warner served in--that the relationship-
based Senate was turning into a more partisan Senate. And we were just
being candid about that.
But when we finished, John said to me: Old friend--old friend is what
he would call you--old friend, that is the way it is. But it is not in
the water supply, and it is not sick building syndrome. It is just in
the character and priorities of the people who walk in the doors every
day. So if you don't like the way it is right now, guess what. You will
walk in the Capitol tomorrow, and it can be different tomorrow if you
try to make it better.
That was just John's attitude about this country and about this
institution, and it leaves a big hole in my life. I am just grappling
with the big hole in my life now not to have John Warner to go to and
seek his advice.
With that, I yield to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee,
the Senator from Rhode Island
Mr. REED. Thank you very much, Senator Kaine and Senator Warner.
I am here today to pay tribute to an extraordinary gentleman, a great
Senator, a decent and honorable individual, the paragon of what we
would all like to be--John Warner.
John was someone who appreciated everyone, respected everyone, and
treated people with kindness. He has monumental achievements, but at
the end of his days, I think people remember him most for the kindness
and the personal help that he gave naturally
[[Page S3473]]
because he was an extraordinary gentleman.
He also was a patriot, not just in words, not wearing a lapel pin or
doing something like that. He joined the Navy at 18 years old at the
end of World War II because he wanted to defend and serve the Nation.
He didn't get overseas, but in 1950, with the Korean war, he decided to
drop everything he was doing and join the U.S. Marine Corps, and he
served with distinction and left the service as a captain.
So he knew what it was like to be a sailor, a marine, a soldier, an
airman, and he never forgot that, and that molded his service to this
country. It was about service. It was about sacrifice, and it was about
protecting the other fellow and other men, and that was John Warner.
He was bipartisan because, again, his focus was the country. It
wasn't party. It was principle and what is best for the country, and I
think that dedication stemmed from the fact that he knew that all
across the world, all through his tenure in the Senate and his public
life, there were thousands of young Americans defending us, and he
wanted to make sure they were well prepared and well protected.
And as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he did that. He did
it in an extraordinarily bipartisan way. He set a tone and a tempo for
the committee that still is with us today, that is imbued in what we
all try to do.
Now, he was someone who had a sparkle in his eye. He always had a
sense of humor, a sense of--I won't say mischief, but probably close to
mischief. And I remember a specific codel he organized. This was his
major codel going into Iraq in 2003, and, of course, it was bipartisan:
Senator Levin, Senator Cornyn, myself, and others. We were in there
because John had to see firsthand what the troops were experiencing,
what he could do to help them, what we needed to know about the
situation. Again, public service--even if it is inconvenient--is
something that he did constantly.
But also he had, as I said, this sense of mischief and a twinkle in
his eye. Now, as we flew out of Iraq, we had to find a place to spend
overnight so the crew could rest. And John, being a very sophisticated
gentleman, a former Secretary of the Navy, knew that there was a nice
place to spend a few hours.
So we landed in Souda Bay, and John arranged that we would get on a
bus, drive up to this beautiful restaurant overlooking the Aegean, and
have a nice night of Greek food and fellowship, bipartisan fellowship.
You could tell he was enjoying himself because other people were
enjoying themselves.
We will miss him, and I just hope and pray that his example of
thoughtful, principled bipartisanship is recognized and honored today,
as it was when he was here with us.
With that, I would yield to my colleague.
Mr. WARNER. Thank you, Senator Reed. I see Senator Thune is here. I
will be very brief.
You mentioned, Senator Reed, about the occasional twinkle in his eye.
I am not sure, again, here is the right time or place to tell the
stories, but that twinkle really lit up when he would talk about some
of his sailing trips with Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Chris Dodd,
usually also involving stopping at select locations, at selected
moments in time.
Mr. REED. Many of them in Rhode Island.
Mr. WARNER. And many of them in Rhode Island.
There are two other comments I want to make. One was, again--both of
our political parties sometimes go a little bit awry. But one of the
things that John Warner did--he didn't need to do this. He was a
sitting Senator, well respected, senior. There was a fellow in Virginia
who was getting into politics who had kind of a checkered history.
Sometimes, he was not necessarily always willing to tell the truth. His
name was Oliver North. John Warner did not think that Mr. North had the
personal characteristics that ought to be in a Senator of Virginia, and
at great political risk to himself, he was willing to make that known.
He didn't leave the party--his party--but said that, you know, the
party, his Republican Party, had to stand for principles, truth, and
respect for the rule of law. Again, it is an example of the John Warner
that was so special.
More recently, as Senator Kaine knows, we, in Virginia, have a very
checkered history with race. And in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of
Education, there were a number of school divisions that literally shut
down rather than letting White children go to school with Black
children. And in Prince Edward County, in a little town called
Farmville, which was--a group of Black students had literally done a
walkout, in their case, on the part of Brown v. Board of Education
case. For a couple of years, Black students had no place to go because
they took the public money and put it into private academies, and there
were no public schools, a great blot on the history of Virginia,
leaving these young people--now not so young--when this issue came up
about 2002 or 2003, with a big hole in their education.
So we thought we could maybe end up providing these individuals an
education, give them a couple of years of community college education.
It was a fairly audacious idea. The local editor of the newspaper there
came up with this. And, at first, the legislature, you know, didn't
want to do this. They didn't want to take this on.
So John Warner got on the phone and called one of his friends, John
Kluge, a very successful business guy, and said: Would you put up the
money? It is only a couple of million dollars. And John and I worked
out something, where we said: Let's have Kluge put up a million, and we
will go back to the legislature and shame them into doing the other
million.
And we did that. It was one of the most moving days in my life to see
these individuals who had been cheated out of their education receive
the ability to get an education. And John Warner never wanted an ounce
of credit and, I don't think, even to this day, that story has been
told too many times.
At the close of this, which is--I know I am not supposed to do this,
but I will do this briefly. John Warner appropriately got recognized
for his service, and there is a submarine named after him. And I
remember going to the commissioning. He and his wife Jeanne, they were
so proud of the young men and women who were serving on that boat and
then carried on the kind of sense of patriotism and public service that
he exemplified.
As we have both said, we are going to miss him a lot, but I hope we
will take that sense of his heart and courage and commitment and maybe
rededicate ourselves to trying to follow that kind of example.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, before I give my remarks, I want to echo
what has been said on the floor here by our two colleagues, the two
Senators from the Commonwealth of Virginia, about Senator John Warner.
I would just say, too, that when I first got to the Senate, my first
6 years in the Senate, I was a member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee. When I got here, Senator Warner was the chairman of that
committee. And I had known him a little bit from a distance because I
had worked as a staffer out here back in the 1980s, but I got the
chance to know him in a very personal way as the chairman of the Senate
Armed Services Committee.
And I have to just, again, associate myself with many of the comments
that have already been made about him. He truly was a gentleman in the
truest sense of the word--somebody who represents everything, I think,
that is good about public life in politics and legislating and making
public policy and cared profoundly and deeply for our men and women in
uniform.
As the chairman of the committee, that was his No. 1 priority. Of
course, as has been mentioned, he was a marine and Secretary of the
Navy and had just a deep, deep passion to make sure that the men and
women who defend this country on a daily basis were respected and had
the resources, the equipment, the training, and everything they needed
to succeed in their jobs.
So he truly was a--he couldn't have been a kinder person to me. As a
rookie out here, I remember I was standing over there offering an
amendment to the Defense authorization bill. I think it was my first,
probably, amendment
[[Page S3474]]
on the floor, and it was something that he, as the chairman, opposed.
And he, I think, probably could have eviscerated me if he had wanted
to, but he had that, as has been mentioned--he had that demeanor and
disposition, somebody described it as a twinkle in his eye. He truly
had that. And he really was out of central casting. If anybody wanted
to cast somebody, he certainly could have had a career in Hollywood
because he looked the part. But it was more than just looking the part.
He lived it. He was truly not only a gentleman but a great Senator for
the Commonwealth of Virginia and a great patriot to this country, who
got up every day and thought of ways that he could make our country
stronger and better.
So my thoughts and prayers are with his wife Jeanne and all of his
family today
Agriculture
Mr. President, the last several years have been difficult ones for
cattle producers in my home State of South Dakota and around the
country. A 2019 fire, and later COVID, caused reductions in meatpacking
capacity, which left cattle producers with cattle to sell and no place
to sell them.
And even now, with our country well on its way to full reopening,
meatpackers are still not back at full capacity--at least in part, it
seems, because of the enhanced unemployment benefits the Biden
administration is providing are not encouraging workers to come back to
work.
Throughout these challenges, ranchers have struggled, but
meatpackers--meatpackers have seen continued substantial profit
margins. While certainly market forces can see the price for cattle
fluctuate, the gap between meatpacker profits and rancher profits
raises some questions, most especially because more than 80 percent of
the meatpacking market in this country is concentrated in the hands of
just four companies.
That level of concentration creates the opportunity for market
manipulation. The gulf between rancher and meatpacker profits and the
significant power these companies have over the beef industry has
raised concerns that we are looking at something more than just an
issue of supply and demand.
That is why I wrote to the Department of Justice at the beginning of
the pandemic urging the Department to begin an investigation into the
meatpacking industry to make sure that there was no market manipulation
going on. The Department of Justice responded by directing the Justice
Department's Antitrust Division to initiate an investigation.
Well, that was a year ago, and since then, we have heard nothing. No
results from the investigation have been released, and it is not clear
whether the investigation is still ongoing.
So, last week, I led several of my Senate and House colleagues, along
with South Dakota Representative Dusty Johnson, in a letter to Attorney
General Merrick Garland urging the Department of Justice to continue
investigating the beef sector to determine if improper and
anticompetitive activity has occurred. It is essential that we hold the
highly concentrated meatpacker industry accountable to consumers and
producers who depend upon it. I will continue to press the Department
of Justice to thoroughly investigate this situation.
Another important thing that we can do to help ranchers start to see
better prices for their cattle is to encourage competition in the
meatpacking industry. As I said, more than 80 percent of the
meatpacking industry in this country is controlled by just four
companies. Encouraging more companies to get into this marketplace and
encouraging small meatpackers to expand will dilute the power of these
four companies and create more competition for ranchers' cattle, which
will lead to higher prices for ranchers when they bring their cattle to
market.
That is why I introduced the Strengthening Local Processing Act in
February with Senator Merkley. Our legislation would help strengthen
and diversify national meat-processing capacity by providing new
resources for smaller, more local meat-processing operations.
Encouraging new meatpackers to enter the market and smaller
meatpackers to expand their operations will provide livestock producers
with more marketing options and thus increase competition for their
cattle. Plus, spreading out and expanding our Nation's meat-processing
capacity over more plants will make our Nation's meat supply less
vulnerable to interruption in situations like the coronavirus pandemic
or natural disaster.
During the pandemic, outbreaks of COVID at meatpacking plants
seriously compromised supply, as empty grocery store meat sections
attested. Had meatpacking capacity been less concentrated, it is likely
that we would not have seen such significant shortages.
Last month, I requested that the Senate Agriculture Committee hold a
hearing to consider the challenges facing the livestock industry, as
well as the bills that have been introduced this year to try to improve
the situation. I recognize that there are contrasting views among
cattle producers on the best path forward to improve the cattle market,
but I am hopeful that a hearing would help lead to the passage of
legislation that would improve the outlook for cattle producers.
I also recently introduced, along with Senator Tester, an amendment
to the legislation the Senate is considering today that would require
the U.S. Trade Representative and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to
review the 2015 World Trade Organization ruling that led to the repeal
of mandatory country-of-origin labeling, or COOL, and identify how it
affected U.S. consumers, producers, and the supply chain.
If the review finds negative impacts, the amendment would require the
administration to submit to Congress legislative or administrative
actions to address the impacts. I am a longtime supporter of country-
of-origin labeling, and I have been raising the importance of this
issue with the new Biden administration.
I will continue working on a path forward for country-of-origin
labeling. There is strong demand for U.S. born and raised beef, and
consumers want to know where their food is coming from. The least we
can do for our ranchers and the consumers who depend on their products
is to provide them with the benefit and certainty of seeing ``Made in
the USA'' labels on grocery store shelves in South Dakota and around
the country.
I think I speak for a lot of Americans when I say there are few
things I enjoy more than a mouthwatering burger or a really good steak.
And there are a lot of men and women out there in South Dakota and
across the country doing the demanding work of raising cattle so that
the rest of us can enjoy our burgers and steaks and roasts.
I am very proud to represent South Dakota ranchers here in the
Senate, and I will continue to make it a priority to support cattle
producers and make sure that they have fair and transparent markets for
the commodities that they produce.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first of all, I compliment Senator Thune
with his remarks and agree with everything that he said and
particularly to emphasize his call for a hearing before the Senate
Agriculture Committee, something we have been trying to get done for a
long period of time, and I hope that will soon happen.
Remembering John Warner
Mr. President, secondly, I would like to follow up on the comments
that the two Senators for Virginia made about Senator Warner.
Senator Warner came to the Senate 2 years before I did, and I
remember him almost constantly talking about the No. 1 responsibility
of the Federal Government: our national security and protecting the
American people. And he was always, whether he was Secretary of the
Navy or whether he was a Senator from Virginia--he was always speaking
strongly about keeping and making sure that our military was strong to
meet its constitutional responsibilities.
I also remember that he was a person that quite frequently would
speak up in Republican caucuses when he had a disagreement with the
leadership of the day or the position of the caucus for the day or
maybe he would even be in the minority of the caucus speaking on
something that he felt strongly about.
[[Page S3475]]
And I also remember his speaking in terms of--after Reagan Airport
was shut down because of 9/11 and the consequences that brought to the
economy of Northern Virginia, how we worked so hard to get that airport
opened up again.
Anti-Semitic Hate Crimes
Mr. President, the third and last reason for coming to the U.S.
Senate floor at this time to speak is to, like all of my colleagues
would do, condemn the troubling increase in hate crimes, whether it is
on any minority group, but today I come to the floor because of the
recent attacks on Jewish Americans.
Anti-Semitism has been called the oldest hatred. Throughout the
history of the Jewish people, they have been subjected to cruelty,
discrimination, and violence. Even in modern times, even here in
America, Jews are still not safe from this hatred, and that is a
profoundly bad and sad situation. No Jewish American should ever
experience bigotry based on their religion, nor should they be
subjected to threats, harassment, or injury because there is a Jewish
State of Israel.
We can express disagreements about foreign policy and about conflict
in the Middle East, but we should never allow those disagreements to
become dehumanizing and abusive. Yet, in response to the terrible
conflict in Gaza recently, Jewish Americans have been attacked in
recent weeks.
The Anti-Defamation League has said that the reporting of anti-
Semitic incidents has gone up 63 percent since the start of the war
between Israel and Hamas.
In New York, two Jewish teenagers were surrounded by an angry mob
just this last Saturday. The boys were told that they had to chant
``free Palestine'' or chant ``kill all Jews'' before they were beaten
and choked.
On Thursday, a man wearing a yarmulke was beaten by a gang of men who
chanted words like ``Hamas is going to kill all of you.''
In Los Angeles, anti-Israel protesters attacked Jewish patrons at a
restaurant. The attackers reportedly said ``death to Jews'' and ``free
Palestine.''
An orthodox Jewish man was chased by cars flying Palestinian flags in
another incident in Los Angeles.
I hope that we all condemn this horrible wave of violence against
Jewish Americans, but Members of Congress can do more to take down the
temperature. We should never vilify Israel or Israelis. This only
fosters other hateful attacks, encouraging others to do dehumanizing
things. We can talk about geopolitical problems without demonizing a
people. That is pretty common sense.
I remember how far anti-Semitic violence can go. In October of 2018,
Robert Bowers attacked the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, PA,
killing 11. He did so after complaining that our first President with
Jewish members in the first family--President Trump, that is--was
surrounded by a Jewish ``infestation.'' Those were his words. It was
the deadliest attack on the Jewish community in U.S. history.
While battling the recent spike in Asian-American and Pacific
Islander hate crimes, we need to remember to combat all hate crimes. I
look forward to opportunities in hearings or in legislation to see if
we are doing everything that we can to protect our Jewish brethren and
all Americans.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both
Senator Sullivan and I be allowed to complete our remarks--me for up to
12 minutes and Senator Sullivan for up to 5 minutes--before the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered
Border Security
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about
the ongoing crisis at our southern border.
Over the past few weeks, the Biden border crisis has been
overshadowed by several other crises facing our country under this
administration. Inflation has surged. The price of gasoline across
Wyoming and likely in the home State of the Presiding Officer as well
is now over $3 a gallon. Democrats have been on another spending spree.
It is a trillion-dollar spending spree. Hiring has plummeted across the
country. Terrorists have attacked our closest ally. The response from
the Biden administration actually on that attack has been to treat both
our closest ally Israel and the attackers of Hamas as equals. I could
go on and on.
The most serious challenges facing our Nation have escalated ever
since President Biden has taken office, but you can't forget the border
crisis that we have now under President Biden. Over the last several
months, basically since President Biden took office on January 20 and
he changed our border policies, the crisis has only gotten worse.
President Biden flipped on a big green light and said: Come to
America. That is the message that people heard all across the world. He
sent a clear message that the border is open.
On his first day in office, President Biden shut down construction of
the southern border wall. He stopped all deportations for 100 days. He
brought back a program basically known as catch-and-release. Now those
policy changes have led to a dramatic increase in illegal immigration.
In March, our border agents caught 170,000 immigrants crossing our
southern border illegally. In April, they caught even more: 178,000
illegal immigrants in just 30 days. The numbers have gone up and up. I
heard a report yesterday that we are now at half a million people
coming in illegally ever since President Biden has taken office. Half a
million--that is the population of the entire State of Wyoming coming
into the country illegally since January 20. This year we are on a pace
for illegal immigration to hit a 20-year high.
Our border agents are overwhelmed. Two-thirds of the Border Patrol
are too busy to actually be out there enforcing the law. They are too
busy either taking care of kids, unaccompanied minors, or adults who
have come across with families and have done so illegally. So only
about one-third are out there trying to stop the bad guys who are
coming into this country--human traffickers, drug traffickers--some
even, we know, on the terrorist watch list.
In fact, they are so overwhelmed that they are doing something now
they have never done before: They are releasing illegal immigrants
directly into the country without even giving them court dates.
Instead, they are telling them to report to ICE facilities, oh,
sometime in the next couple of months. This is unprecedented. This is
worse than catch-and-release. This is an absolute, total surrender by
the Biden administration to people coming into the country illegally.
This is in addition to the tens of thousands of immigrants who simply
escape. Border Patrol calls them getaways. They got away. They got into
the country without being stopped. We saw these folks doing this when a
number of us went to the border a month or so ago, chanting across the
Rio Grande River: ``You cannot stop us now.''
The top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, Senator
Portman, revealed last week that there were 40,000 of these ``got-
aways'' just last month. Well, how many of them were drug smugglers?
How many of them are human traffickers? How many are on the terrorist
watch list? We will never know. Over the same month, deportation hit a
record low.
The crisis might have disappeared from the headlines, but it hasn't
gone away. And the people living near the border are being impacted
dramatically. It is only getting worse
Fifty thousand unaccompanied children have crossed the border since
Joe Biden became President. Unprecedented. At a time of a global
pandemic, these children are not social distancing, let me tell you.
That is what we saw when we saw them crammed in like sardines into the
Donna facility at the southern tip of Texas.
The media reports that the Department of Health and Human Services
has left some kids on buses overnight. This is a humanitarian crisis:
nowhere for them to sleep, nowhere to bathe. One teenager named Joel
said he was left on a bus for 3 days. That is how President Biden and
his administration are handling the situation.
I know Democrats love to lecture Republicans about humane immigration
policy. This is not humane. This is not humane.
[[Page S3476]]
The White House is now boasting that they are transferring the kids
out of Border Patrol facilities. Nothing to brag about there. That is
what the law mandates. They are just sending them from one overcrowded
government facility to another overcrowded government facility. It
seems like they are playing a shell game with these kids so they can
play with the numbers.
But the problem hasn't been solved; no, sir, it has not. Thousands
and thousands of children keep showing up, and the crisis keeps getting
worse. The Biden White House has told the world: Anyone under 18 can
cross our border; we will let them in. And they are coming in record
numbers. So it is not a surprise that tens of thousands of families are
taking President Biden up on the offer. Not just families--criminals
are taking advantage of these children. Criminals know that Border
Patrol is overwhelmed. Criminals know, if they use kids to distract our
agents, they will be able to make an end run via got-away, get-around,
and bring drugs into the country.
Border Patrol has come to the Congress and has told the
Appropriations Committee in the House that they are seizing four times
as much fentanyl this year as they seized last year. They are not sure
how much they are missing, but we do know that this is a drug that
killed more than 30,000 Americans in 2019.
Border Patrol has already seized more fentanyl over the last 7 months
than they did over the previous year. They have seized enough fentanyl
at the border--people trying to move it into the country illegally--the
volume that has been seized at the border is enough to kill more than a
million people. That is just the drugs that we know about. Imagine the
drugs we don't know about.
Well, how are Democrats going to deal with this border crisis? Many
are ignoring it. Neither the President nor the Vice President has been
to the border since taking office 4 months ago--neither one of them.
Many Democrats are trying to distract people from the issue. So why are
the President and Vice President not going? Because they know, if they
go, TV cameras will go with them, and it will attract more attention to
the crisis--the humanitarian crisis, the national security crisis--that
they have created.
Now some Democrats are actually proposing that we make the crisis
worse. Last week, the Senate had an opportunity to finish the border
wall. Remember, the border wall has already been paid for. Only one
Democrat voted to complete the wall. Every other Democrat voted to
block it. They voted against finishing the wall even though we have
already paid for it.
I have been there. I have seen areas of the wall. The materials are
there lying on the ground, just needing to be lifted up and connected
to other portions of the wall, and that construction stopped the day
President Biden took the oath of office.
The Border Patrol officers say it would make a huge difference in
their lives, in their jobs of protecting our Nation, if they could just
put up and place that final spot of the wall.
Some Democrats are actually encouraging even more illegal
immigration. Democrats in Washington just sent $26 billion in taxpayer
money to the Governor of California. Now, what does he want to do with
the $26 billion that was sent to the Governor of California? He wants
to give some of that money to illegal immigrants.
Eight Senate Democrats have introduced a bill to give free healthcare
to children who are here illegally. They introduced a bill this month,
knowing full well about the child migration crisis at our border. This
bill would only make the crisis worse. The Democrat promises of
government benefits are a magnet to illegal immigrants.
Democrats talk a lot about compassion. This is not compassion. The
compassionate thing to do is to stop the crisis. We know how to do
that. We know what works. Democrats don't like to admit it, but
President Trump was historically successful in controlling our border.
Democrats say that the system was dismantled. This is the exact
opposite of the truth. Democrats are dismantling it today. Democrats
need to stop giving our taxpayer dollars to illegal immigrants.
Democrats need to turn off this magnet that is drawing 50,000 children
to risk their lives and take a very dangerous journey, many paying
those to traffic them, to bring them up to the border and carry them
across.
We need to go back to the policies that make our borders secure:
Enforce the law, close the loopholes that encourage our illegal
immigration, finish the wall that we paid for, bring back the Remain in
Mexico policy.
This crisis might be overshadowed by the other crises that are
hitting us now in this Nation, ones for which Joe Biden is responsible;
yet the crisis at our Southern border will not go away until we take
action.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The clerk will call the
roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1911
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, for decades, even centuries, America's
universities have been the envy of the world and one of America's
biggest comparative advantages. At their best, they are hubs for
innovative thinking, places where free exchange of ideas are not only
encouraged but expected on campus. They have been the backbones of
innovations that have changed countless lives in America and, really,
across the world for the better.
Now, of course, freedom of speech is enshrined in the First Amendment
of our Constitution. The birth of our Nation was the result of our
Founding Fathers escaping tyranny and pursuit of freedom of thought and
expression.
And since the inception of our country, we have prevailed over every
country an empire that we have competed with, in part, because of
America's commitment to the free exchange of ideas, and our
universities have traditionally amplified this longstanding American
ideal and comparative advantage.
But, unfortunately, this is changing. Today, it is becoming
increasingly clear that many of our universities too often stamp out
the exchange of ideas for certain politically correct narratives. This
is having a chilling effect on our students, on campus, and most
importantly, their ability to express themselves.
Let me present some disturbing findings. A recent Gallup survey of
3,000 undergraduate students found that 81 percent of students widely
support a campus environment where they are exposed to all types of
speech, even speech they find offensive--81 percent. However, that same
survey found that only 59 percent of college students believe that free
speech rights are secure, and that is down from 73 percent just 4 years
ago.
That same survey also found that 63 percent of university students in
America agree that the climate on their campus deters students from
expressing themselves openly, almost two-thirds of American students.
That is remarkable. It is dangerous, not just for university life but
for American life, and I believe it is unacceptable. Fortunately, we
can do something about it with the simple amendment that I have offered
today.
This bill that we are debating right now, the Endless Frontier Act,
will be sending billions, tens of billions, of dollars--taxpayer
dollars--to America's universities. My amendment says, in return for
these billions of dollars when applying for National Science Foundation
funds, universities will be required to attest that they are protecting
free speech, religious liberty, and prohibiting discrimination on
campus and explain what steps they are taking to ensure compliance.
That is it, a letter to the NSF once a year for billions in Federal
research dollars.
Now, already, we are hearing that some universities oppose my
amendment, calling it ``burdensome.'' Well, here it is. It is 2 pages.
It is simple. It is easy. This university opposition actually
illustrates the problem that, in exchange for billions of dollars in
Federal research money, America's universities can't be bothered to
demonstrate to Congress and the American people that they are committed
to the principles of the First Amendment which, by the way, have made
our country and our universities so exceptional.
[[Page S3477]]
Censorship, oppression, and one-sided thoughts are characteristics of
Communist China, not America, and certainly should not be the
characteristics of America's great universities--to the contrary.
One of the most important ways to compete with and win against
Communist China is to ensure that America--and, yes, our universities--
remain what they have traditionally been: laboratories of free
expression, free thought, creativity, innovation, and ingenuity.
My simple amendment will help make sure this happens, and I encourage
all of my colleagues to vote yes to support this amendment, an America
of free liberty, free thinking, and innovation.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. 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. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on Sullivan
amendment No. 1911.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to amendment
No. 1911. It is an amendment that claims to be about protecting free
speech but that could actually have a very chilling effect on speech at
our institutions of higher education.
I share the goal of fostering campus environments that protect free
speech and the free exchange of ideas, but I have multiple concerns
with the way this amendment goes about advancing those goals. It is not
the role of the National Science Foundation or the inspector general of
the National Science Foundation to police speech on campuses.
Deciding what is appropriate regulation of speech should not be left
to agencies that are not experts in constitutional analysis or in
issues related to First Amendment protections at our institutions of
higher education.
I believe it would be a mistake to use today's amendment to make
substantial change without the opportunity for input from students,
educators, and stakeholders. I have heard from many institutions of
higher education, as well as civil rights groups, who strongly share my
concerns.
I urge my colleagues to vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, with all due respect to my colleague
from Washington, when the universities say they can't do this because
it is too burdensome, again, to me that actually demonstrates the very
problem my simple amendment is trying to resolve.
All it is saying is in exchange for the tens of billions of dollars
that America's universities will be getting as part of the Endless
Frontier Act, they have to do one simple thing: once a year, send a
letter to the National Science Foundation saying--and this is in the
amendment right here--they have committed to protecting free speech,
viewpoint diversity, the free exchange of ideas, academic freedom, and
the protection of religious liberty, and prohibiting against
discrimination.
That is it, Mr. President. It is very simple. This is what
universities should be doing. It is a letter, once a year, that is very
simple in exchange for billions and billions of Federal research
dollars. I certainly hope all of my colleagues will support this
amendment--simple, needed.
Again, this is how we outcompete communist China, which is all about
what the Endless Frontier Act is focused on.
I encourage my colleagues to vote yes.
Vote on Amendment No. 1911
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. SULLIVAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 207 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
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
NAYS--51
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
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
The amendment (No. 1911) was rejected.
____________________