[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.

                          ____________________