[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 133 (Thursday, July 29, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5154-S5170]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       EMERGENCY SECURITY SUPPLEMENTAL TO RESPOND TO JANUARY 6TH 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2021

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3237) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2021, 
     and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I will just take a few minutes here. This 
is very important, that we get this supplemental passed.
  I want to first thank my colleague and the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Leahy, for the work he has done here, 
working together to get where we are today. This has been a lot of 
work, working together, but it also shows that we can work together in 
a bipartisan way and put the country first, and this is evidence here.
  What does this bill do? It sticks to immediate security needs, the 
urgently needed funding to safeguard the Capitol, ensure National Guard 
readiness, and protect our allies in Afghanistan. That is among other 
things. It is just over $2 billion total, more than half of which is 
for the Department of Defense. Out of the defense funding, $521 million 
is to fill National Guard shortfall and about $500 million to evacuate 
Afghan allies; $600 million for the State Department to fund Afghan 
special immigration visas; $100 million for our own Capitol Police 
here, to fund that; and $300 million for security enhancements around 
the Capitol.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes for this.
  Again, I want to thank Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell, our 
leaders on both sides of the aisle, for helping bring this to where we 
are today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, we need to support our Capitol Police, and 
we

[[Page S5155]]

will. We need to repay our National Guard, and we will. We need to 
protect our allies who kept our troops safe, and we will.
  Emergencies arise, and the biggest threat to dealing with them, in my 
opinion, is fiscal irresponsibility in DC. We could have easily paid 
for the major parts of this legislation with offsets within the DOD.
  I think our spending process is broken at every level. We don't do 
budgets anymore. We vote that the rules don't matter. It seems like 
Congress can only agree on one thing: Deficits and debt don't matter 
anymore. But they do. And both parties are to blame. And they threaten 
our ability in the long run to respond to emergencies when they arise, 
like the important ones in this bill, not to mention that everything we 
do here currently is on borrowed money literally from our kids and our 
grandkids.
  My point of order reference has my friend Mike Enzi's name at the top 
of it. I am speaking here today for the reasons I just mentioned and in 
honor of him as well.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2123

  (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
and Senator Shelby's be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2123.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                Amendment No. 2124 to Amendment No. 2123

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2124 and ask that 
it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
  The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], for Mr. Cotton, proposes an 
amendment numbered 2124 to amendment No. 2123.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require a report to Congress on the health of the Afghan 
                    special immigrant visa program)

       On page 17, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       (c) Report to Congress.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees a report, including 
     a classified annex, if necessary, on the Afghan special 
     immigrant visa program as described in Section 602(b) of the 
     Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) and 
     Section 1059 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 
     2006 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note).
       (2) Elements.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) The total number of visas issued under such program, 
     disaggregated by fiscal year.
       (B) With respect to principal aliens issued special 
     immigrant visas under such program, a description of the 
     types of roles performed for which such aliens earned 
     eligibility for such visas.
       (C) Information regarding the average processing times for 
     visa applicants under such program, disaggregated by the 
     fiscal year in which visa applications under the program were 
     submitted.
       (D) The number of individuals who have pending applications 
     for visas under such program, including--
       (1) The number of individuals approved of the total number 
     of applications processed by the Chief of Mission; and
       (2) The number of successful appeals of the total number of 
     application appeals filed.
       (E) The estimated total number of individuals who have 
     performed the requisite employment to apply for a visa under 
     such program, but who have not yet applied for or received a 
     visa, including a description of the methodology used to 
     create such an estimate.
       (3) Appropriate congressional committees defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means--
       (A) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed 
     Services, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed 
     Services, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Homeland Security of 
     the House of Representatives.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, Senate amendment No. 2123 would make new 
budget authority available for fiscal year 2021. The Senate Committee 
on Appropriations has not filed its suballocations as required by the 
Congressional Budget Act.
  Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to 
section 302(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive all applicable sections of 
that act or any applicable budget points of order for purposes of the 
pending amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to time being yielded back?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I understand we are going to have a voice vote on the 
Cotton amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2124

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2124) was agreed to.


                            Motion to Waive

  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to waive.
  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.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Rounds).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Marshall) would have voted ``nay.''
  The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 286 Leg.]

                                YEAS--72

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Cramer
     Cruz
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--26

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Fischer
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Marshall
     Rounds
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 72, the nays are 
26.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to and the point of order falls.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2123

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Leahy 
amendment, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 2123), in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the bill is 
considered read a third time.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill pass?
  Mr. HEINRICH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S5156]]

  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Rounds).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Are they any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 287 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Marshall
     Rounds
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the passage of this bill, the bill, as amended, is passed.
  The bill (H.R. 3237), as amended, was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for joining both 
myself and Senator Shelby on the Leahy-Shelby amendment. There have 
been weeks of negotiation, most of it quiet but weeks of negotiation 
going on in this.
  I am sure I can speak for both Senator Shelby and myself. We each 
might not have gotten everything that we wanted, but on this specific 
issue, we got what the country needed. We got the improvements for the 
security of our Capitol, the symbol of our democracy. We showed what we 
can do to help take care of the damage to the Capitol Police, what we 
can do to help those who work so hard here in the Capitol, the men and 
women throughout the Capitol and Capitol Complex facing the threat of 
COVID.
  And thanks to bipartisan efforts, we had the issue of people who had 
worked with our military and our government in Afghanistan. And, now, 
as we withdraw, something that both President Trump and President Biden 
wanted to do within this timeframe--as we withdraw--they face 
retribution from the Taliban. We had to show our commitment to protect 
them and to save them, and there is money and laws that are in this 
that will help.
  All in all, it meant a lot of Republicans and a lot of Democrats had 
to come together. I have been here longer than anybody else in this 
body, and I have seen days when Republicans and Democrats come together 
and we accomplish something, and I have seen times when we don't and 
nothing gets accomplished.
  I have also found, over these years, that nobody gets every single 
thing they want, but you try and do things that will make the country 
better, that will help the United States of America, that will help the 
things that we stand for.
  This bill, the fact that it has passed 98 to 0, is an example of 
that. So I thank my colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
remarks of mine, that I be able to add them to the Record, including so 
many of the people who needed and should have been thanked for what 
they have done, that they be added in the Record along with my earlier 
statement.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Chairman Leahy List for H.R. 3237 Staff for the Record

       I would like to thank the staff of the Committee on 
     Appropriations on a bipartisan basis, for their significant 
     contributions on HR 3237, the Emergency Security Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act 2021, including Charles Kieffer, Chanda 
     Betourney, Erik Raven, Katy Hagan, Brigid Kolish, Drew Platt, 
     Jean Toal Eisen, Jennifer Eskra, Alex Keenan, Mike Gentile, 
     Jessica Berry, Hannah Chauvin, Tim Rieser, Sarita Vanka, Kali 
     Farahmand, Madeleine Granda, Jenny Winkler, Valerie Hutton, 
     Jay Tilton and Maddie Dunn, as well as Shannon Hines, 
     Jonathan Graffeo and David Adkins from Vice Chairman Shelby's 
     staff.

  Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute to Lydia Jacoby

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, it is Thursday. It is my favorite time 
of the week. I get to come down on the Senate floor and talk about 
someone who has made an impact on their community, maybe the State, 
maybe the country, and, occasionally--occasionally--the world. That is 
what I call our Alaskan of the Week.
  Now, this is going to be a little bit of a historic ``Alaskan of the 
Week.'' I have been doing this, gosh, going on 6 years almost, and 
while this is a historic moment, because we have never made someone an 
Alaskan of the Week twice--it has never happened. We are making Senate 
history right now. But you might know that we had a historic week in 
the Olympics because our Alaskan of the Week a month ago, whom we 
talked about here on the Senate floor, Lydia Jacoby, when she made the 
Olympic team, she won Gold. And for anyone who saw that race, that 100-
meter breaststroke race a couple of nights ago, you will probably never 
forget it. We certainly are not going to forget it.
  And I guarantee you, Lydia's hometown of Seward, AK--a beautiful, 
incredible town of 3,000 people, wonderful people--they are not going 
to forget it.
  So history is right here on the Senate floor. Lydia Jacoby, gold 
medalist--as the Washington Post called it in a headline, ``an Alaskan 
Stunner''--is our Alaskan of the Week for the second time.
  You know, I always talk a little bit about Alaska before I do my 
``Alaskan of the Week'' speech. A lot of people, particularly at this 
point in the summer, when they are visiting, are curious about the 
light: if the Sun ever sets in the summer, when it rises. So what I 
always try to do is tell people: Come on up and see for yourself. We 
would love to have you. We are having a beautiful summer.
  I will give you a hint. Right now in Seward, AK--that is the home of 
our Gold medal Olympian athlete, Lydia--the Sun will rise today at 5:32 
a.m. and set around 10:35. We lost about 5 minutes from yesterday. But 
if you are still thinking about coming up to Alaska for a summer trip, 
come on and do it. There is still lots of Sun.

  There is tons of excitement across my State, and there is tons of 
excitement across Alaska, in Seward and everywhere else, because of 
this incredible young 17-year-old. And if you saw it on TV, Seward, AK, 
Monday night was probably the site of the best Olympic watch party 
ever--I hope people saw that--ever.
  So I talked about Lydia about a month ago when she cinched her spot 
on the team, and she did that by actually swimming the second fastest 
time in the world in the women's 100-meter breaststroke finals in the 
Olympic trials for the United States. So we, in Alaska, knew she was 
something.
  I will mention this again: Alaskans, we punch above our weight in the 
Winter Olympics. We do really well in the Winter Olympics, for reasons 
that most people probably understand, and we have done pretty well in 
the Summer Olympics, particularly in trapshooting, riflery. We have an 
Olympic veteran

[[Page S5157]]

rugby player right now. Alev Kelter from Eagle River is also competing. 
Her team made the Olympic quarterfinals. She might be on the field 
later tonight, so good luck to her. We are going to be rooting for her 
as well.
  But Alaska has never sent a swimmer to the Olympics, ever, let alone 
won a gold. As the NBC announcer said after the race, Alaska ``is not 
exactly your hotbed of swimming in America.''
  Someone else pointed out that Alaska is dead last in the United 
States in terms of swimming pools per mile by far. We don't have a lot 
of swimming pools. And, as a matter of fact, Lydia's story is even more 
impressive because there is only one Olympic-sized pool in the whole 
State of Alaska, and that is in Anchorage, a 2\1/2\-hour drive from 
Seward, her hometown.
  So I will just reiterate a little bit more about this remarkable 
young woman and her dedicated mom and dad who raised her. Her parents, 
Leslie and Richard, are both boat captains. Leslie is the educational 
coordinator for the Marine Science Explorer Program at Kenai Fjords 
Tours, and Rich is a maritime instructor at the Alaska Vocational 
Technical Center--AVTEC, as we call it--and he also is a guide for 
Arctic and Antarctic trips.
  They raised their daughter Lydia in Seward, signed her up for swim 
classes when she was a toddler. Good job, Mom and Dad. She joined the 
swim club when she was just 6 years old. When she was 10, she was 
selected for the Alaska Swimming Zone Team. State qualifying meets 
allowed her to go on trips.
  In between all of this, she was and continues to be a musician, 
learning to play the guitar and upright bass. She sings. She plays at 
folk festivals. Her band is the Snow River String Band. She was also in 
theater and in track. She likes to write, take pictures, and explore 
tidal basins. This is just a good, all-American teenager in Alaska.
  And, of course, she excelled in swimming. Her parents continued to 
be, in their words, surprised and amazed and, of course, so proud.
  One of her coaches, Solomon D'Amico, described her as ``kind, quiet, 
and yet confident'' and said that Lydia had an ``intense fire,'' one 
that you might not see immediately in her. But neither her parents nor 
her coach pushed her too hard. They wanted the drive to come from her, 
and it certainly did.
  On Monday night, when this historic race started, the NBC announcers 
were focused mostly on the reigning Olympic champion and world record 
holder, American Lilly King, as well as the newly minted Olympic record 
holder, Tatjana Schoenmaker of South Africa. In the announcers' minds, 
that is where the competition was.
  But we knew better, especially in Seward, AK, where about 400 people 
gathered for the race. All eyes were on Lydia. They knew all along she 
could do it.
  In Tokyo, the NBC announcers started to notice the underdog. And if 
you haven't watched the race, go to YouTube. It is so exciting. And 
they saw her starting to pull ahead in the final seconds. You could 
hear the announcers getting excited. They said:

       Then you've got Jacoby, lane 3, challenging Schoenmaker. 
     Watch Jacoby. Lydia Jacoby, the 17-year-old from Alaska, is 
     putting on the surge of her career.

  Watch it. It is so exciting. And, of course, she did. Now, there is a 
video of everybody watching in Seward, which quickly went viral, of 
Lydia's friends and classmates and neighbors jumping up and down, 
stomping the floor, when the announcer yelled, ``Alaska has an Olympic 
Gold Medalist. Oh, my gosh.''
  The place went nuts.
  Anyone watching, if you want to get Olympic joy, go on the website 
and look at the Twitter video that the Olympics put up. It is a split-
screen shot of the race at the top and the great fans in Seward, AK, 
cheering. And when she wins, watch what happens. It is priceless. It is 
Olympic joy at its best.
  Lydia's parents, Rich and Leslie, were in Florida, where NBC and the 
Olympic Committee had set up a watch party for families of the 
athletes. They, too, knew that she had it in her to win the gold. Her 
dad said: ``When she hit the wall at the turn, we knew she was right in 
there. She likes to run [people down]'' in her races.
  On television, the joy and the pride of her parents was also 
priceless. They are still filled with excitement and pride and, let's 
face it, a little bit of shellshock. And they are so grateful for the 
outpouring of support from Alaskans and, let's face it, Americans 
across the country.
  ``It's true,'' Rich said, ``about Alaska being the biggest small town 
in the world.'' Rich said that Lydia is doing great; she is happy, 
tired, a bit overwhelmed. We don't know yet. She might be competing in 
an upcoming relay race, which she is super excited about. We will see 
if that happens.
  As for what is next, her dad said Lydia is going to continue her life 
of being a normal teenager; participate in high school sports, no 
doubt, continue to play music; and she is still planning on attending 
the University of Texas in the fall, a normal teenager but who has 
touched so many lives across Alaska, particularly Seward, but across 
the country--really, across the globe.
  As one Washington Post columnist put it on Lydia's win, ``There are 
moments at [the] Olympics that redefine a town. And there are moments 
at [the] Olympics that make you say: `That's why I watch [the 
Olympics]. That's why I came. That's what [the Olympics is] all 
about.'''
  And I think we all saw that when we watched this race. We saw that, 
including the two other competitors who won the silver and bronze, 
Lilly King and Tatjana Schoenmaker, who came over to Lydia and were so 
gracious, hugging her, joyful.
  So I want to thank them. I want to thank Lydia's coaches, including 
Solomon, who put so much training and dedicated so much time and effort 
to her skills; and, of course, to her mom and dad for their very hard 
work, early morning practices, raising an exceptional daughter; to the 
competitors; really, everybody.
  And, of course, to Lydia: Great job on your hard work, dedication, 
grit, determination. Throughout the years, so many people--throughout 
the decades, so many people have dreamed of finding gold in Alaska, and 
you are an Alaskan who found gold in a way that has inspired and 
overjoyed not just your community of Seward, not just our State, but 
literally our country and the world.
  So, Lydia, congrats on the gold medal; congratulations on your win; 
and congratulations, for the first time in Senate history, on being the 
only person ever to be our Alaskan of the Week two times. Great job
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The Senator from Connecticut.


                       Remembering September 11th

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in just a few weeks, our Nation will 
come together to remember September 11. It will be the 20th anniversary 
of that unspeakable act of horror, an attack on our Nation that 
devastated us and, most particularly, the families and loved ones who 
lost members of their family and friends--the fallen--who will be 
remembered on that day and honored.
  And I have been honored to stand with those families over the years, 
as many of us have, as they remember their loved ones and continue to 
face the trauma and immeasurable grief of their loss. And in these 
years, many of those families have sought justice. They have tried to 
honor their loved ones with action to vindicate not only their 
individual grief and mourning but also justice for our Nation, truth, 
and truth-telling in the courts of law in this country. They have 
brought legal action against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the face of 
mounting, significant credible evidence that, in fact, the Saudis aided 
and abetted that attack on our Nation.
  As a Congress, we have acted to support that effort, and I was proud 
to help to lead the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, known as 
JASTA, when we passed it overwhelmingly here, and then on a bipartisan 
basis, we overrode the President's veto. It was President Obama who 
vetoed it, and many of us, including the Presiding Officer, voted to 
override that veto, I believe.
  We opened the courthouse doors to the 9/11 families in their legal 
effort to hold Saudi Arabia accountable in the face of that evidence of 
its potential complicity. Again, I was proud to stand with these 
families in 2018 when I introduced, with the help of Senators

[[Page S5158]]

Cornyn, Schumer, Gillibrand, Murphy, and Menendez, a resolution urging 
that documents related to the September 11 attack be declassified to 
the greatest extent possible.
  That resolution passed the U.S. Senate unanimously--unanimously--
because all of us recognized that the survivors and the families of the 
fallen and the American people deserved answers, the truth about what 
happened on September 11, who was behind it, who supported it, who 
aided and abetted, and who was complicit in enabling that handful of 
terrorists to do such a devastating attack and unspeakable horror on 
this Nation. Many of us have stood with those families to ensure that 
the 9/11 families not only get their day in court but are also able to 
go to court with all the evidence they need to have a fair chance to 
prove their case.
  I have asked questions at oversight hearings, including of Director 
Wray of the FBI. I have sought commitments from nominees like Attorney 
General Garland. I have written letter after letter after letter, with 
Democrats and Republicans alike, calling on the Department of Justice 
and the FBI to provide information that the 9/11 families have 
requested.
  I am proud to continue to stand with those families as we approach 
this 20th anniversary date, but I also, in fairness to this 
administration, want to say that the moment of truth-telling now has 
arrived, and there is a moment of reckoning here.
  These families, since JASTA, have been engaged in an epic legal 
struggle against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for aiding and abetting 
the terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11, but now 
that struggle is also one against their own government, our government, 
because while Congress did our job in passing JASTA, opening the 
courthouse door to give those 9/11 families a chance at justice, the 
last administration invoked the state secrets privilege without 
explanation to shield the documents and information the 9/11 families 
need to make their case.
  The last administration denied them their fair day in court, and I 
say with great regret that the current administration seems intent on 
doing the same. My hope is otherwise. That is the reason I have raised 
this issue publicly and privately repeatedly, not only in the last 
years but in the last weeks. To deny information to the 9/11 families 
and, equally important, to the American people is unacceptable, and it 
is unconscionable.
  The requests that I and so many of my colleagues have made to the 
Department of Justice and the FBI to disclose and declassify what can 
be disclosed and declassified in the national interest--those requests 
have gone unanswered. Sadly, the executive branch across 
administrations has repeatedly failed to provide any explanation--let 
me repeat: failed to provide any explanation--let alone meaningful 
justification for why there has been no disclosure. That denial of 
explanation or justification is itself also unacceptable and 
unconscionable. These families will never get their loved ones back, 
but at the very least, they should get answers. In fact, they deserve 
answers. They deserve the truth. The American people deserve the truth.
  Now, what the executive branch has done is to invoke broadly and 
unspecifically something called state secrets privilege. State secrets 
privilege was and remains intended to prevent court-ordered disclosure 
of government information when genuine and significant harm to the 
national defense or foreign relations is at stake but only to the 
extent necessary to safeguard those interests.
  It is also clear under the Department of Justice rules that it should 
be invoked only upon sufficient showing that it is necessary ``to 
protect information the unauthorized disclosure of which could 
reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to national security 
and that the invocation be narrowly tailored for that specific 
purpose.''
  Here is the problem: We don't know if that is what happened in the 9/
11 families' case or in many other cases. We don't know whether 
decisions to invoke this privilege met this high and exacting standard 
or were narrowly tailored. And we don't know because in the 9/11 
families' case, the Department of Justice and the FBI have claimed that 
even the Trump administration's ``justification for secrecy needed to 
remain secret'' and the ``public discussion of the issue `would reveal 
information that could cause the very harms [the] assertion of the 
state secrets privilege is intended to prevent.' '' These blanket 
assertions and vague justifications undermine both public confidence 
that our government will only invoke the privilege to protect national 
security and the pursuit of justice.

  Now, let's be very clear. There are times when disclosure can imperil 
methods and secrets and sources in information gathering. There are 
times when secrecy is important to protect an ongoing investigation. We 
are talking here about disclosure of information relating to an attack 
20 years ago. There is no indication of any ongoing investigation into 
the attack on our country. There has been no explanation that sources 
and methods may be imperiled. There has been no justification 
whatsoever.
  Similar rationales, blanket assertions of protection, have prevented 
explanations in other cases as well and in some instances have led to 
the withholding of documents or information and outright dismissal of 
cases, depriving victims of an opportunity for justice.
  In 1948, three civilians were killed when a B-29 aircraft testing 
secret electronic equipment crashed in Waycross, GA. Their grieving 
widows did the only thing they could, bringing a wrongful death action 
in Federal court against the government. But the invocation of the 
state secrets privilege prevented them from receiving justice and the 
truth.
  In 2003, Macedonian officials abducted a German citizen at the 
request of the CIA. In that instance as well, justice was sought 
unsuccessfully, and the case was dismissed because the government 
invoked the state secrets privilege.
  In 2006, the FBI allegedly engaged in the targeted religious 
profiling of Muslims in Southern California. If true, it was and it 
remains an egregious abuse, one that led these individuals to sue the 
FBI. But rather than let the case proceed and rather than let the truth 
come to light about what the FBI did and why, the government asked the 
trial court to dismiss the case on the basis of the state secrets 
privilege, and the trial court agreed. This case, however, is not yet 
over because the Supreme Court will hear it in the fall after it has 
wound its way through the lower courts. As we know, justice is often 
delayed. In this instance, justice delayed is justice denied, again 
because of the state secrets privilege.
  Let me close with a bit of history. On September 11, 2019, the then-
President of the United States, Donald Trump, made a promise. He made a 
promise to the 9/11 families. He made a promise to them to their faces. 
He looked them in the eye, shook their hands, and he told them that the 
Department of Justice would disclose documents relative to their case 
against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The next day, the Attorney General 
of the United States, William Barr, in a sworn declaration to the 
Southern District of New York Federal Court, invoked the state secrets 
privilege to prevent the release of the very information that the 
President of the United States had promised those families, the same 
documents, the same evidence that the President of the United States 
had vowed to disclose. The very next day, the Attorney General of the 
United States went into the Federal District Court in New York and said 
no.
  The 9/11 families, whom I have come to know and admire, deserved so 
much better from the last administration. But it is not about one 
administration or another. It is about the United States providing them 
with the truth. It is about our government providing the people of the 
United States with the truth.
  I will be coming back to the floor in the weeks ahead, and I hope my 
colleagues will join me in raising this issue, in calling on the 
Department of Justice and the FBI to review their decision invoking 
this privilege, to declassify and disclose information that they have 
withheld. They have yet to explain why the national interest is served 
by this blanket, unjustified, and unexplained invocation of the state 
secrets privilege. The 9/11 families and

[[Page S5159]]

the American public deserve that much and more. And this case is about 
accountability. It is about holding accountable the Kingdom of Saudi 
Arabia.

  I am not here to argue the case in court. I am not here to take issue 
with any legitimate, urgent, narrowly-tailored interest that may be 
served by this Privilege, but there is no indication of any such 
interest and, in fact, neither the FBI nor the Department of Justice 
should stand in the way of justice for these families in court.
  They owe the American people an explanation, and they owe the 9/11 
families the truth so they can bring it to bear in their quest for 
justice.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from Oklahoma.


                              The Economy

  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, there are a lot of issues we are 
working through right now in the Senate.
  Obviously, infrastructure is in conversation, and what is going to 
happen with some spending dealing with National Guard, Capitol Police.
  We are working a lot on issues, like Afghan translators--trying to 
get those folks who walked alongside our soldiers for 20 years and 
risked their lives out of harm's way before the Taliban slaughters 
them.
  We are engaged in a lot of issues. There are a lot of things 
happening behind the scenes. I thought it might be helpful to be able 
to give a couple of things I think we need to consider.
  One is what is happening in the State Department right now. State 
Department engagement on the issues of passports is a major issue. It 
is a frustration for a lot of Americans. And I would tell you, a lot of 
Oklahomans that we deal with on a day-to-day basis on our team are very 
frustrated with trying to get their passport renewed. They didn't 
travel last year, obviously, with COVID, but now they want to be able 
to do some traveling in places where they can.
  Good luck with that, as we have found. Right now, the backlog at the 
State Department is about 18 weeks. Today is the 29th of July. That 
means if you turn in your application for your passport today, you may 
get your passport December 2. Merry Christmas. If you plan on traveling 
Thanksgiving, you need to pay the extra fee to do an expedited delivery 
though we are at the end of July right now.
  The problem?
  The State Department still hasn't brought all of their staff back. 
They are not engaging. The rest of the country is open and operating, 
and the State Department is still studying how they are going to come 
back in, and millions of Americans are just waiting for their passport
  I have spoken to leadership in the administration about this exact 
issue. In fact, I talked to some leadership who literally said to me: 
Oh, I wasn't aware there was a problem.
  Listen, there is a problem, and it is not just in the State 
Department. It is in multiple other agencies. As America opens back up, 
trying to be able to manage all the issues with COVID, they are very 
aware of masks and vaccines and spacing.
  But companies have figured out how to do this. For some reason, 
multiple agencies have not and it is causing real problems. It is not 
just problems in our economy with permitting and other things, some of 
the policies that have been put in place are causing real problems 
across our economy for just individuals.
  We have an unemployment rate right now in June at 5.9 percent. We 
don't know what it will be for July, but it is getting better and 
better all the time. In Oklahoma, we have one of the lowest 
unemployment rates in the country. We have a lot of people employed 
because we turned off the extra unemployment benefits at the end of 
June and people came back to work. That is a good thing for them, for 
their families, for their kids, and for our economy. As we continue to 
be able to reengage, that is helpful.
  But what we are seeing right now is inflation, consumer price 
increases like we have not seen in more than a decade. The Consumer 
Price Index increased by 5.4 percent. That is the most in 13 years.
  We are watching the rapid rise in prices that Americans feel. It is a 
direct result of this $2 trillion bill that was done in March, where it 
paid people not to work, sent checks to individuals, and did lots of 
other benefits.
  Many people, even economists from the Obama administration, said: 
Don't do this. It will cause inflation.
  What have we seen?
  In just the last 5 months: milk prices up, bread prices up, bacon 
prices up, price of gasoline up, price of wood up, price of building 
materials up, price of rental cars up, prices of used cars up, 
shortages in different supply chains--things we all identified in 
February and March and said we need to be attentive to.
  If you dump $2 trillion into the economy, what does that do?
  In the middle of this dialogue about inflation rising right now and 
everyone in America is seeing the rise in prices, there is a 
conversation about trillions of dollars more of spending--more of 
spending.
  What effect do you think that will have? We have already seen the 
effect of what happened in March. What effect do you think it will have 
to add another, as is being forecast, $3.5 trillion more spending?
  Sometimes we can't wrap our head around the issues of millions and 
billions and trillions because it all seems like numbers. There is a 
big difference between millions and billions and trillions. The best 
way I can describe this is, if you have a million seconds rather than a 
million dollars, a million seconds is about 11\1/2\ weeks. That is a 
lot. But a billion seconds is 31\1/2\ years. That is a big difference. 
Brace yourself because a billion seconds is 31\1/2\ years, but a 
trillion seconds is 31,688 years.
  These are big numbers that are being thrown around and it is hard to 
wrap our head around how much spending is really going on, but the 
concept of throwing out $3.5 trillion is mind-boggling.
  Let me give you one more. A trillion miles--if I were to say: How far 
is a trillion miles? A trillion miles is if you left Washington, DC, 
today and flew to the planet Pluto 334 times. From DC to our furthest 
planet 334 times, that is 1 trillion miles.
  This is a lot of money that is being thrown around and has real 
consequences, knowing the debt and the borrowing and the tax changes, 
but how much things actually cost.
  I am continuing to challenge my colleagues when they discuss all 
these big numbers and say: Let's throw all this money out there; it 
will have no consequence.
  I will tell you, the people in Oklahoma feel what is going on. They 
may not know, but they feel it in the prices every day, what is going 
on in supply chains, and they are very aware. And the No. 1 question 
that I get asked when I am out and about in places in Oklahoma is: 
Where is all this money coming from?
  It is a fair question.
  There is this back-channel conversation right now happening on 
immigration as well. Right now, the news is focused on 10 million other 
things, and I literally have people in my State saying: Things must be 
going better at the border now because I don't hear about it much 
anymore.
  I will smile at them and I say: I happen to be on that committee and 
be very engaged in the issues of border management and border security. 
Things are not getting better; they are getting worse.
  March was the highest number of illegal crossings in 20 years. It was 
beaten in April; it was beaten in May; it was beaten in June. Current 
trend, that will be beaten in July. Just last week--just in 1 week, 
last week, the Rio Grande crossing--just that one sector in 1 week had 
20,000 interdictions--in 1 week. At one time, they had 15,000 people 
who they were detaining.
  So what is happening with that?
  I keep hearing from the administration that we are going to take on 
the root causes. The root causes is a simple way to say we will deal 
with this later. Because if you want to talk about root causes, it is a 
statement saying that, basically, the problems are in Central America; 
we can't stop it.
  Well, that is a nice note, except for here is a list of the countries 
that have crossed our border illegally just this year. It is over 100--
over 100 countries where individuals have illegally crossed the border.

[[Page S5160]]

  So what about Brazil? What about Chile? What about Colombia? What 
about Guinea? What about Indonesia? What about Mauritania? Are we going 
to go after the root causes there? What about the Philippines, 
Indonesia, Romania, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates?
  This is just a few of the people who have illegally crossed this year 
in big numbers.
  Listen, this whole conversation about root causes is a distraction. 
We do need to be engaged in the Western Hemisphere. We do need to deal 
with our drug addiction in this country that causes the flow of drugs 
to be able to move through South America, Central America, Mexico into 
the United States. We do need to be aggressive in how we are handling 
cartels. But to somehow believe that if we poured enough money into the 
Northern Triangle that suddenly this would all end is false.
  We are the greatest country in the world. The root cause of 
immigration into this country is the great power of the United States, 
both for freedom and for our economy. People from all over the world 
want to come here.
  We have a million people a year who legally come to the United 
States--legally, a million--and folks who don't want to wait in line, 
who pay a cartel and move through Mexico to be able to get here 
literally from all over the world. If we do not enforce our borders, 
these numbers will continue to rise as they have every single month in 
this administration. Every month, the numbers get bigger.
  We have got to get on top of this. I wish I could say the 
administration is taking it seriously. I wish I could say they have a 
plan. I wish I could say they have released out their studies that they 
said they were going to do. But they have not released out their 
studies. They have not released out their plans, and I continue to ask 
week, after week, after week.
  The first hint that I got of what they planned to do came out in 
their budget. In their budget, they reduced funding for ICE, and they 
reduced the number of bed spaces for ICE. I was shocked. The numbers 
continue to skyrocket, and in their first release of what they plan to 
do on it, they asked for a 1,500-bed space reduction in ICE capacity 
for detention.
  Now, honestly, when I got it, I thought: I can't believe they are 
putting this in print, but I already knew that it was going on. Why did 
I already know that it was going on? Because, as I have tracked the 
numbers all the time, I have watched the number of deportations and ICE 
detentions dramatically decrease. While some people are focused on the 
border, they lose track of the fact that not only is this 
administration not enforcing our southern border, they are not 
enforcing the interior of the country.
  We have 6,000 ICE agents in the United States, 6,000 professional law 
enforcement-career folks who are in the country, arresting individuals 
who are illegally present in the country, with the first priority being 
criminal illegal aliens. That is their first priority, the safety and 
security of the United States. Of the 6,000 agents in the United 
States, in May, they did 3,000 total arrests--3,000 among 6,000 agents 
in a month. That is a record low because the administration changed the 
rules for ICE agents on who they could interdict.
  The first big rule change they made is that ICE agents cannot arrest 
someone who is not legally present unless they get permission from 
regional leadership by name to arrest that individual. This means, if 
they go into a place to arrest someone and they encounter one person 
they received permission to actually arrest but also find three other 
criminal aliens there, they cannot detain or arrest them. They have to 
leave them and request by name later to go back and get them. And guess 
what. They are not there. Shocking. And it is not all criminal aliens. 
There are only certain criminal aliens they are now allowed to actually 
detain. That is a big shift from every previous--every previous--
administration.
  Let me give an example that I actually gave to Secretary Mayorkas and 
asked specifically about some recent frustrating moments from our ICE 
agents.
  Just a few days ago, ICE reached out on a previously deported alien 
by name. This person had been convicted of a sex assault of a minor 
under age 14. The alien was at large, and they asked permission to be 
able to go after this alien and to be able to do a street arrest. 
Remember, they had been deported before. They knew they were in the 
area. There were previous sex offender convictions. They were denied 
the ability to go after that person. They were told, no, they don't 
meet the standard.
  Case No. 2. Another person who was previously deported had a previous 
conviction for indecency with a child, sexual contact. They were a 
registered sex offender. They believed they were in the area. They were 
asked if they could pursue an arrest. Regional leadership told them no, 
they could not.
  Case No. 3--this just happened last week--is of a previously deported 
alien, twice. So this means they were for the third time in our country 
illegally. There were previous convictions for alien smuggling--that 
is, trafficking of people--theft, and illegal entry. They knew they 
were in the area. They asked if they could do the arrest. Regional 
leadership told them no.
  I could go on and on.
  ICE has a different set of rules now from what they had in the past. 
It is not just criminal aliens anymore; it is that they have to be 
really high criminal aliens. I could give you lists of people who have 
multiple DUI offenses, and ICE asked if they could detain them, and 
they were told no.
  Listen, we have all said in this room that we should engage with 
criminal aliens and that criminal aliens should be deported. I don't 
know of a person in this room who hasn't said it. We stopped in May 
deporting criminal aliens. Are we going to do nothing about that?
  If you don't believe me, call Secretary Mayorkas. He will send you a 
copy--that I have as well--of the interim guidance that was put out in 
May for ICE agents, limiting who they could deport and the process for 
deportation. I have asked him specifically: If someone goes to pick up 
a criminal alien and there are other aliens who are there, can they be 
picked up? The answer has been no.
  We have a problem not just on our southern border but what is 
happening in our country and the issue of enforcement, and we would be 
wise if we would pay attention to this.
  I am fully aware that there are many individuals in this body who do 
not like the southern border wall. That has been a topic of great 
debate in this room for several years. But is this body aware that in 
January of this year, when President Biden ``paused'' the border wall 
construction and said: I am going to spend 60 days studying it, that 
60-day study is still not complete 200 days into the Presidency? He has 
still not completed the 60-day study.
  On top of that, the pause of that construction, during that time 
period, we are still paying contractors to not do construction. So far 
this year, we have paid contractors $2 billion--billion with a ``b''--
not to construct the wall. Now, you may think it is a waste to 
construct the wall. I do not. But please tell me you at least believe 
it is a waste to not construct a wall and still pay contractors--to not 
construct a wall.
  We are currently paying contractors $3 million a day to watch the 
materials that had been delivered by January 20 that were sitting on 
the ground--for steel, for fiber, for cameras, for lighting, for roads. 
We are paying $3 million a day to have them watch the materials on the 
ground to make sure they are not stolen--$3 million a day. That is a 
waste.
  As people cross our border in record numbers, a new policy has been 
instituted on our southern border, called a notice to report. This, 
again, has never been done by any administration. A notice to report is 
when the line gets too long on the southern border, with people 
crossing the border, when they are trying to check everyone in--if the 
line gets too long, Border Patrol is instructed to grab the folks in 
the back of the line and give them a notice to report. That is a card 
telling them where ICE Agency offices are around the country, and they 
can just go ahead and go and turn themselves in at whatever ICE Agency 
they want to turn themselves in to anywhere in the country. So far, 
50,000 people this year have been given one of those cards at

[[Page S5161]]

our southern border and told ``turn yourself in wherever you go in the 
country''--50,000.
  My shock, as I am trying to track the number, is that 13 percent have 
actually done it. I was surprised the number was that high. But that 
means 87 percent of the people who we have handed a card to and said 
``turn yourself in wherever you go in the country'' have not. Eighty-
seven percent--we have no idea where they are of the 50,000 people who 
were released into the country because the line was too long at that 
moment
  Listen, we can disagree about a lot of things on immigration, but 
handing people a card and saying to just travel anywhere you want to go 
in the country and turn yourself in when you get there--can we at least 
agree that is a bad idea? Can we at least agree that paying contractors 
$2 billion not to construct the wall is a bad idea? Can we at least 
agree that criminal aliens who had been previously convicted and are 
being picked up for another charge should at least be deported in the 
process? Can we at least agree, if you want to deal with the ``root 
causes'' in the Northern Triangle in Central America, that it does not 
deter the people from over 100 countries who have crossed our southern 
border this year illegally? There is a bigger problem. Can we at least 
agree that we should address this?
  We have a great deal of work to be done. I would encourage all of us 
to get the facts, to get the details of what is really happening, and 
to understand that when over a million people have illegally crossed 
the border just this year, that we know of, that is a problem. It is a 
problem that hasn't been there in the past anywhere close to this kind 
of number, and we should address it in this body.
  I have written letters. I have made phone calls. I have done reports. 
We have done research. I have sat down with Secretary Mayorkas. I have 
held nominees for DHS. I have done everything I can do to bring this 
issue to the forefront. Although others seem to ignore it, this is an 
issue that we should not ignore. National security is not something we 
should be flippant about, and not everyone crossing that border is just 
coming for a job. We should engage.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                         Remembering Mike Enzi

  Mr. KING. Madam President, I rise to speak of a friend and colleague 
whom we lost this week.
  Mike Enzi, a Senator from Wyoming, retired from this body in January 
of this year when his successor was seated but served here honorably 
for several decades.
  I think the simplest description I can give of him is that he was a 
kind, good, and decent man. I worked with him on the Budget Committee, 
but I got to know him best through the Wednesday morning Prayer 
Breakfast, where to say he was a regular participant is an 
understatement. Even after he left the Senate, he was at every single 
Prayer Breakfast, including last week's, from his home in Wyoming via 
Webex.
  He was a devoted family man and a devoted man in the service of his 
country in this body. He had a rare quality. Unfortunately, I don't 
think it was all that rare some years ago, but it seems to be becoming 
rarer and rarer. It is a quality my father preached to me years ago. 
You can disagree without being disagreeable. That was the way he was. 
He and I disagreed on a large number of matters, particularly on the 
Budget Committee, but he never was overbearing; he never was 
condescending; he never was harsh. It was always in the spirit of 
disagreement, in good faith, based upon principle.
  I want to talk about Mike Enzi, but I also want to put him in the 
context of modern politics because I think there are a couple of 
lessons we can learn from him to try to change the course that we seem 
to have embarked upon.
  One of the problems with modern American politics is, we don't have 
opponents; we have enemies. We have converted those we disagree with to 
people we demonize and say are bad people; they are evil. They aren't. 
They have different views. They have different values. Perhaps they 
have different principles. But to convert opponents into enemies is to 
poison our democratic system. It is to poison our ability to work 
together in the common good. If you make someone into an enemy, they 
are going to be an enemy even when it comes to something where you 
might agree, and Mike Enzi never did that.
  One of the things Mike Enzi taught me was the 80-20 rule. We have all 
heard of 80-20 rules in various contexts. His 80-20 rule was, if you 
are working on a difficult public issue, work on the 80 percent where 
you can agree, and put the 20 percent where you disagree aside. He was 
able to do that throughout his career.
  He was famous before I got here, but he was famous for working with 
Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts when they were both on the HELP 
Committee.
  I said: Mike, how did you get along with Ted Kennedy?
  He said: It was easy--80-20. We put the 20 percent aside where we 
knew we were going to differ, and we worked on the 80 percent where we 
could, and if everybody applied that principle around here, we would 
get a lot more done.

  He was also a principled Senator. Indeed, he would have been on the 
floor today, making a point of order about the supplemental budget that 
we just passed because he believed in the principle of the Budget Act; 
he believed in the principle of balancing budgets. He was an 
accountant, and he was a principled man.
  And he was also decent and kind, as I mentioned, but there is one 
story about him that I want to tell that has stuck with me, and I have 
told it 100 times, although I never told it while he was with us. Now 
that he is lost to us, I think he would be OK with my telling this 
story.
  I was having dinner with him one night early on when I was here in 
the Senate, and he mentioned that he was concerned about the 
possibility of having a primary opponent in the Republican primary in 
Wyoming, and I was incredulous.
  I said: Mike, you are one of most conservative Senators here. How can 
somebody possibly get to your right? And here was my precise question:

       What will they charge you with?

  And his answer was as profound as it was disturbing. He said:

       They will charge me with being reasonable.

  Think about that for a minute. He was concerned about the possibility 
of losing a primary election because he had been reasonable; because he 
applied the 80-20 rule and tried to work together to solve problems, 
even though there were disagreements on other areas. But he could 
lose--he could have lost his election because he was willing to listen 
to the other side, to be reasonable, to try to find accommodation, and, 
yes, compromise.
  And this isn't only a Republican issue; this is a growing issue 
across our country in primaries, particularly in gerrymandered 
districts where the primary is the election.
  And we are getting a new crop of Representatives and Senators who are 
coming here who have been told: Don't you dare compromise. Don't you 
dare listen to those other people. You better watch whom you are having 
lunch with.
  I remember spending some time with our immortal Senator Margaret 
Chase Smith from Maine, whom I got to know fairly well before we lost 
her in the midnineties. And she said, during the McCarthy period, you 
literally had to worry about whom you had lunch with in the Senate 
dining room. Because of guilt by association, you would be associated 
with some liberal Senator.
  We don't want that to be the case. It shouldn't be the case. But if 
you can lose a primary because you are viewed as someone who is willing 
to compromise, whether you are getting that primary from the left or 
from the right, imagine what it does to our ability to get things done.
  If people come here knowing that one of the ways they can jeopardize 
their career is by listening to the other side, trying to get to know 
what is going on on the other side and compromising to get something 
done, it is paralysis. It is one of the reasons we are in paralysis.
  Mike Enzi said:

       They are going to charge me with being reasonable.

  I think this is one of the hidden problems in American politics 
today. It is not what your position is on abortion

[[Page S5162]]

or gun rights or foreign policy or any other--immigration--it is 
whether you are willing to talk to the other side, listen, and try to 
get to a compromise to solve a problem. That can cost you your seat. 
What a pernicious doctrine. What a dangerous situation.
  Democracy is built upon compromise. We have 535 people in this 
building. We are going to have 535 different viewpoints, interests. We 
represent different States, different areas. We have different 
principles. We have different values. We have got to compromise, 
otherwise it is just perennial gridlock, which, by the way, our 
constituents hate.
  When I talk to people in Maine, what they most--the biggest question 
I get is, Why can't you people work together? Why can't you get 
anything done? Why can't you talk to one another and sit down and break 
bread together and solve problems?
  This idea of not being able to compromise--this body is a product of 
compromise. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the debate almost 
fell apart on the issue of representation.
  There was the large State plan and the small State plan, and the 
worry was, if it was only one body of the legislature, that the big 
States with more population would overrun the smaller States. They 
couldn't figure out what to do, and finally one of the delegates from 
Connecticut proposed what was called the Great Compromise, which was 
the invention of the U.S. Senate.
  This body itself is built on compromise. But there is no human 
problem that can be solved without compromise. Nobody has it all right. 
Nobody has all the answers. No party has all the answers. No group of 
people have all the answers. You always are better off listening to 
other people, debating, and coming to some consensus solution.
  I have a friend in Maine who has a big sign in his office that says: 
``All of us are always smarter than any of us.'' And I think that is a 
profound observation. It means that there is wisdom throughout this 
room and throughout this body and that we have to tackle these 
difficult problems--difficult, challenging problems that we have using 
all the wisdom that we could possibly get our hands on, and that means 
listening to other people even though we may not agree with them.
  I just sat and listened to the Senator from Oklahoma make an 
impassioned and, I think, powerful statement about immigration. He 
raised questions in my mind that I want answers to. That is the way 
this place is supposed to work
  But if I can't go back to Maine--if I can't go back and admit I 
listened to the Senator today and he raised questions that bothered me, 
if I can't say that, if that in itself would endanger my career, then 
if people are coming here fearing that kind of being locked out, we 
will never get anything done.
  So, to me, Mike Enzi was a hero and a model--and a model of the kind 
of person that we need in this body. I didn't agree with him on a lot 
of issues, but he was always willing to listen.
  And I did agree with him. There was some measurable percentage--I 
don't know, 10, 20, 30 percent--where we did agree, and he was a very 
effective ally because he was so respected here because people knew 
that he made his own decisions.
  And we need more people like him, and we need to remember the 
principle that he shared with us, which is be reasonable.
  When we are in a place where being reasonable is an offense that can 
cost you your job, we are in real trouble as a country. We are in real 
trouble as a democracy.
  It is hard enough in a democracy to make decisions and to get things 
done. That is inherent in our system. The Framers wanted to design a 
system that was difficult and cumbersome to operate, and they succeeded 
beyond their wildest dreams.
  But it was always based upon a principle of listening, of debating, 
of changing minds, and, yes, of compromising.
  So I want to pay tribute to Mike Enzi today not only because, as I 
said, he was a kind, good, and decent man, but because I think he was 
an example of the kind of people that we need here and the way we 
should conduct ourselves and the way we should do our work.
  And we also have to talk to our constituents and say to them: You 
have to let me listen to the other side. You have to give me a little 
space to try to do something good. It may not be perfect. It may not be 
just what you like. But it may be what we need. It may be the best we 
can do in a pluralistic, democratic system, where people have different 
outlooks, viewpoints, values, and priorities.
  So we lost a great man this week. We lost a great person. We lost a 
great Senator. We lost a great friend. We will miss him.
  I miss not only Mike and that great smile, but I miss what he stood 
for, the way he conducted himself, the way he treated his fellow 
Senators and everyone that he encountered.
  Mike Enzi was a great man. I hope we can live up to his example.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                                 Crime

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, let me state the obvious: There is a big 
and growing problem in our country, and the American people are 
becoming more and more alarmed.
  A recent poll found that 60 percent of Americans are worried about 
crime. The percentage of those who say they are extremely concerned is 
at the highest point in more than two decades.
  And it is easy to see why. Even our former colleague from California, 
Senator Barbara Boxer, was recently assaulted and robbed in California. 
But cities across our country have experienced an alarming spike in 
violent crime and murder rates.
  New York City has seen nearly double the number of shootings from 
2019 to 2020. Nationwide, homicides are up 25 percent during that same 
period. That is the largest single-year increase since 1960.
  Not only are the American people noticing these increases with 
growing alarm, they are eager to see solutions that help make things 
better by improving public safety.
  A recent poll found that 90 percent of Detroit residents said they 
would feel safer with more cops on the street, not fewer. That seems 
intuitive. It seems obvious but apparently not to everybody because 
this is the antithesis of the rhetoric we have heard over the past 
year, as many on the left have called to defund the police and reduce 
the role that law enforcement officers play in our lives.
  A number of major cities took the recommendation of these activists 
and eliminated funding for their police departments.
  New York City, Oakland, Baltimore, are among the many cities to cut 
police funding. Today, they are among those increasing police budgets 
to address rising crime rates that I think are directly related to the 
``defund the police'' effort.
  It is important to note that not all the leaders of our major cities 
are on board with this trend. Last summer, when I was in Dallas 
visiting my friend, Mayor Eric Johnson, it was on its way to recording 
the highest number of murders in 16 years. The city council cut the 
police department's overtime budget by $7 million. Mayor Johnson pushed 
back against these irresponsible cuts at the time when crime and 
domestic violence were already on the rise, and now he is pushing the 
city to hire 275 new police officers and increase officers' salaries.
  The truth of the matter is, Texans, like other folks across the 
country, are concerned about the increasing crime in their communities. 
Leaders should want to focus on the needs of their constituents, but a 
small but loud group of liberal activists who want to reimagine law 
enforcement--whatever that means--apparently have prevailed on those 
who would like to see our communities safer.
  Well, we are starting to see a response, really a boomerang, from 
these ``defund the police'' efforts. For example, take a look at the 
new Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City. At this point last 
year, protesters marched in the streets of New York chanting ``defund 
the police.'' One year later, the presumed winner is a former NYPD 
captain who ran on a tough-on-crime platform.
  As it turns out, practical solutions to real problems carry more 
weight than ideological warfare.
  Here in the Senate, we are in the process of finding solutions to 
deliver

[[Page S5163]]

tangible results. Our friend, Senator Tim Scott, is leading 
negotiations with our Democratic colleagues. And I know I am not alone 
in hoping we can take bipartisan action to restore trust and 
accountability in our police while at the same time having their back. 
But we have to remember that this crime surge is tied to far more than 
police departments.
  Make no mistake, law enforcement plays a key role in stopping crime, 
but there is a lot more that can and should be done to prevent crime 
from happening in the first place. One factor we can't ignore is the 
crisis on our southern border. Despite the fact that we reached 
migration levels not seen in the previous two decades, the Biden 
administration has simply failed to provide law enforcement with the 
resources they need in order to secure our borders.
  Border Patrol agents, who should be on the front lines of this 
crisis, are caring for children instead of stopping criminals and 
illegal drugs from coming across our border. They are changing diapers 
and supervising playtime.
  Meanwhile, the drug cartels, that are very sophisticated, understand 
that when you take 40 percent of the Border Patrol off the border and 
have them processing unaccompanied children, that that is a prime 
opportunity to smuggle illicit drugs into the United States, which, 
unfortunately, contributed to the deaths of 93,000 Americans last year 
alone just in drug overdoses.
  So when our Border Patrol is not adequately funded and resourced, or 
because of bad policy decisions diverted from their primary tasks, we 
don't know who is crossing the border and we are creating more risk for 
our communities across the country. The lack of personnel creates huge 
gaps; and make no mistake, the criminals and cartels know how to 
exploit those gaps.
  In 2019, a 33-year-old Honduran national was arrested in North 
Carolina on rape and child sex offense charges. This man had been 
previously deported, but he illegally reentered the United States. 
After his arrest, the county jail refused to honor the detainer from 
ICE--Immigration and Customs Enforcement--and so the man was released. 
It took 2 months before ICE was finally able to arrest him.
  But this type of story is not unique. We all remember the tragic 
murder of Kate Steinle in 2015. She and her father were walking along a 
pier in San Francisco when she was shot and killed. The man who killed 
her was an illegal immigrant who had been deported not once, not twice, 
but five times, and he had seven felony convictions.
  Now, I want to be clear about one point. The actions of these 
criminals do not and should not reflect on the tens of millions of law-
abiding immigrants, period. Any attempt to frame immigrants in general 
as a threat to our country is completely devoid of facts and detached 
from reality. But my point in sharing these stories is to show that 
there are devastating and dangerous consequences to an unfettered flow 
of people and drugs and other contraband across the southern border. We 
need to know exactly who and what is crossing our border, and this 
applies both to people and contraband.
  Cartels and criminal organizations are paying very close attention to 
the state of our border security. They see when gaps are created by 
fewer officers on the front lines, and they are simply exploiting those 
gaps.
  Fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana are pouring 
across our border at a growing rate. As I mentioned, there are 
consequences, with 93,000 Americans dying of drug overdoses last year 
alone. That is up 30 percent over the previous year.
  And the experts tell us there is an association between substance 
abuse and crime. There are crimes involving the drug users themselves, 
both who steal to buy drugs as well as those who are under the 
influence of drugs when they commit their crimes. And we can't ignore 
the dangers drug dealers and traffickers create for our communities.
  Last week, the police chief of the District of Columbia held a press 
conference to discuss crime increases in this city. He talked about the 
dangers of marijuana use, saying, ``I can tell you that marijuana is 
undoubtedly connected to violent crimes that we are seeing in our 
communities.'
  He went on to say this creates a very dangerous ``situation, because 
those individuals get robbed, those individuals get shot, those 
individuals get involved in disputes all across our city.''
  Those are his words, those are not mine.
  But those dangers apply to any type of drug being moved and 
distributed by illegal channels, whether it is marijuana, heroin, 
cocaine, fentanyl, or anything else. We have a fundamental 
responsibility to stop criminals, stop the cartels, stop gang members, 
stop the drug dealers, and the host of unknown dangers from quietly 
slipping across our border and infiltrating our communities.
  The Biden-Harris administration needs to take these responsibilities 
seriously. The Biden-Harris administration needs to take their 
responsibilities for public safety seriously. The only thing worse than 
the increase in crime and the growing concern among the public is the 
prospect of things actually getting worse.
  If we are not stopping dangerous people and drugs at the border, or 
handicapping local police departments by defunding them, what do we 
expect to happen? Do we think there will actually be a positive 
outcome?
  That is detached from reality, of course. The American people are 
overwhelmingly concerned about the increasing crime in America, and 
they deserve to have a government that prioritizes the safety of them 
and their families.
  Concerns about crime are shared by both Republicans and Democrats. My 
friend, the mayor of Dallas, Eric Johnson, who I mentioned a moment 
ago, had to fight with his own city council to get the police 
adequately funded. He is a proud Texas Democrat. So these are not 
partisan matters.
  This is not the time to pull critical funding from our police or 
villainize officers or paint such a broad brush that the actions of one 
taint the reputation and our support for the rest of law-abiding and 
patriotic law enforcement officers.
  This is not the time to relax our enforcement at the border or create 
even more opportunities for crime, cartels, and gangs to exploit our 
laws.
  So crime in America is a very real problem, and the Biden 
administration needs to wake up and address this full range of 
contributing factors before the situation becomes even more dangerous 
in all of our communities across the States.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNOCK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia.


                        Medicaid Saves Lives Act

  Mr. WARNOCK. Madam President, I believe healthcare is a human right. 
And with all the incentives on the table for Georgia to expand 
Medicaid, it is past time to do so. My home State of Georgia, where 
State leaders have refused to expand Medicaid, has the opportunity to 
provide affordable healthcare to 646,000 people who could qualify.
  I refuse to allow Georgians to suffer and be cut off from care while 
politicians play games. This is why I introduced recently the Medicaid 
Saves Lives Act. This is legislation that would allow people in States 
like mine, that haven't expanded Medicaid, an alternative path to 
health coverage; because for far too many, access to affordable, 
reliable healthcare is the difference between life and death.
  I agree with Martin Luther King, Jr., who said that, ``of all the 
injustices, inequality in health care is the most shocking and the most 
inhumane.'' So I am grateful that this plan, the Medicaid Saves Lives 
Act, which I introduced the other day, is positioned to be included in 
the forthcoming economic package.
  That is why I rise again on the Senate floor to tell the story of 
another Georgian, a story that gets to the heart of why this bill is 
important.
  This is Amy Bielawski. Amy is the owner of a small business, Hare-
Brained Productions. It is an event planning and entertainment company 
in Tucker, GA. As you can imagine,

[[Page S5164]]

Amy's company took a significant hit during the pandemic.
  Unable to book regular gigs and plan events--events that all of us 
miss as we have been clawing our way back from this pandemic--Amy 
qualified for unemployment benefits this past year. And with that 
critical support, Amy had temporary access to affordable marketplace 
plans created by the Affordable Care Act.
  But with the end of Georgia's unemployment benefits looming and the 
entertainment sector still suffering from the effects of the pandemic, 
her access to coverage--the coverage she so desperately needs--is on 
the brink again.
  At the same time, she will have to manage her thyroid disease, high 
blood pressure, pituitary gland tumor, fibroids, and all the other 
health hiccups that come along with aging.
  If Georgia was to expand Medicaid or if there was a Federal Medicaid 
Program for nonexpansion States like Georgia, Amy would no longer have 
to worry about getting reliable health coverage for her chronic 
conditions. This is the human face of the public policy we make or the 
public policy we fail to make.
  As our State's healthcare options stand now, Amy says she ``doesn't 
think they care about people like me falling through the cracks.'' Even 
more disappointing, when asked what Medicaid expansion would mean for 
her, Amy was reluctant to even picture that future. She said: Well, it 
is really difficult to say ``because I've never had consistent 
healthcare--it is hard to imagine.''
  Think about that. It is hard for somebody who works every day with a 
kind of entrepreneurial thrust and serious work ethic, grit, and 
determination, in the richest country on the planet. She says it is 
hard for her to imagine having consistent healthcare. She says she is 
``used to being shoved aside and doing without.'' With all of Amy's 
health issues, doing without, as she puts it, can only work for so 
long.
  We are costing Georgia more and more every day by not providing 
access to healthcare to the people who need it most. Like Amy's story 
speaks to, without affordable and comprehensive coverage, preventive 
care and annual appointments are skipped. Conditions that could perhaps 
be treated or seen at their early stage and prevented, worsen, and 
Georgians end up using emergency rooms instead of addressing these 
health issues in primary care appointments months prior.
  This past year, Amy herself had to go to ER because of chest pains, 
and with a history of high blood pressure, she couldn't ignore the 
sharp pain in her chest that wasn't going anywhere. So she made her way 
to the ER. After all, what if it was a heart attack?
  A short stay later, after spending less than an hour in a hospital 
room, she went home with a $3,000 bill. That is bad policy for her. It 
is certainly bad policy for every Georgian. What kind of costs would be 
avoided, for the hospital and for Amy herself, if she had access to a 
primary care provider through Medicaid, and more regular, affordable, 
consistent access to care?
  In other States, Amy would be eligible for Medicaid. And, according 
to Amy, access to reliable, quality, affordable healthcare through 
Medicaid would be nothing short, she says, of ``MIRACULOUS.''
  Amy is one Georgian who represents the stories of hundreds of 
thousands in our State and across the country who need the Medicaid 
Saves Lives Act. And until we get this done--because I believe that 
healthcare is a human right--I am going to keep lifting up Amy's story 
and the stories of other Georgians who would benefit from this 
lifesaving legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                                Olympics

  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I am told that the distinguished Senator 
from Georgia may have some followup unanimous consent. OK. If not, I am 
happy to proceed.
  I rise today pointing out an injustice done by the authorities 
running the Tokyo Olympics. This morning, Americans learned the news 
that Sam Kendricks, an American double world champion pole vaulter from 
Oxford, MS, has been shut out from competing at the Tokyo Olympics 
after a positive COVID-19 test today--almost certainly a false positive 
COVID-19 test. This is an injustice that can still be rectified if the 
Olympic Committee will be fair.
  For those of you who don't know Sam, he is an alum of the University 
of Mississippi, Ole Miss, where he took back-to-back NCAA championships 
before launching his professional career. He won the U.S. Olympic 
trials in 2016 and went on to the Rio Olympics, where he took home the 
bronze medal.
  Then again, you probably do remember Sam Kendricks. He is the pole 
vaulter who stopped mid-run in the 2016 Olympics to stand and salute 
for his national anthem. That is Sam Kendricks, Olympic champion from 
the State of Mississippi. He has made his school, his State, and his 
Nation very proud, and by all accounts he was expected to be a 
contender for the gold medal this year.
  But after testing negative for the COVID virus three times, Sam 
received a positive test result earlier today. The timeframe is 
different in Tokyo, but it was on Thursday. And under International 
Olympic Committee rules, he was immediately disqualified from 
competition, even though he had previously tested negative three times 
and even though he has already had the coronavirus. And even after a 
followup test, administered according to U.S. Olympic standards, came 
up negative, the rules are that you have to wait 6 days.
  Well, guess what, his competition is Friday, and adherence to high-
bound rules like that will bar him from the Olympics. There is no 
consideration for the fact that his test--one of thousands of tests 
administered daily--may very well have been a fluke.
  As Sam told the world, he is not sick, he is not displaying symptoms, 
and he has already had COVID-19 and should be immune. And, again, he 
tested, according to U.S.A. track-and-field team tests, immediately 
after getting this false positive.
  Obviously, the fair thing for the Olympic Committee to do would be to 
follow up immediately on another test to verify whether all these 
negatives were correct and, undoubtedly, they were. But the powers that 
be won't allow Sam Kendricks to get an official followup. No, according 
to protocols, he must wait 6 days. Then he can have a followup test, 
which no doubt would show that he doesn't have the coronavirus
  What is magic about 6 days? What about the young athlete? What about 
fundamental fairness? As Sam Kendricks' father said: These athletes 
traveled too far, worked for too many years, made too many sacrifices 
not to confirm a positive test--a very inexpensive thing to do.
  I agree with Mr. Kendricks. These athletes should be given a 
confirming test--one test to minimize the chances of a false positive. 
But that is not the way the Olympic authorities in Japan see it.
  My question is this: What is the health risk of a followup test? How 
could it possibly hurt anyone or anything to make sure you have got it 
right when you tell a young American that he can't compete for his 
Nation in the Olympics?
  So I say I am not just disappointed, I am outraged, outraged that a 
young athlete is unfairly missing out on his chance to show his talent 
to the world and win a gold medal on behalf of his country, and aghast 
that a proud global tradition like the Olympics, a celebration of 
sport, competition, and international cooperation, has been reduced to 
testing protocols and rigid rules that are fundamentally unfair--
inflexible rules that assume there is no such thing as a false positive
  I send my best wishes and congratulations to Sam Kendricks and his 
family for the good grace they have displayed in the face of this 
unfair and pointless disqualification.
  And allow me to state emphatically that I am not willing to be so 
gracious.
  If this action stands--and I hope it will not stand--this high-bound 
decision by the decisionmakers at Tokyo should make them ashamed of 
themselves. It is not too late, even today. It is Friday morning in 
Tokyo. Even today, the Olympic committee can use common sense and 
fairness. It is Friday morning in Tokyo. When the Sun comes up, give 
Sam Kendricks a confirming test and allow this young man to represent 
his country.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S5165]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). The Senator from Utah.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the word ``republic'' means public thing in 
Latin.
  We bring our different perspectives and our different identities 
together respectfully to make decisions for an entire Nation. The 
United States is a nation with diverse, varied beliefs, different 
cultural origins, and different politics from the different regions and 
different States that we represent. It has been this way from the very 
beginning.
  As much as some of us imagine otherwise, from the very outset of our 
Republic, there were immense, regional differences. Depending on which 
State someone represented, they might have different views.
  Now, our Republic--and, for that matter, any republic ever in the 
history of republics--has relied on the willingness of the citizenry to 
be kind, for individuals who play a role in that Republic to be kind 
and respectful and decent to each other, even when--especially when--we 
disagree with each other. Our Founders knew that, and they enshrined it 
into our Constitution.
  As much as anything, they assumed it, and it was on that set of 
assumptions that the norms enshrined in the Constitution became 
possible, because without them they would not be. Without them none of 
this would work.
  You see, the only way a republic can possibly function now or 250 
years ago or 250 years from now is that it always has to follow a 
somewhat similar formula. The only way it can function is when citizens 
and leaders are gracious to those with whom they disagree and grant the 
freedom necessary to allow others to make choices, even if those 
choices might be things that they disagree with.
  We have witnessed the degradation of American political discourse for 
some time now. It has been a sad, tragic reality unfolding, but it is 
not an inexorable conclusion. It is not one from which we cannot 
depart. But we must make a choice to do better and to choose a better 
path.
  We received a bulletin earlier today--a bulletin from the Capitol 
Police--indicating that all visitors and all House staffers and, in 
fact, all House Members are required to wear masks indoors or be denied 
entry or forced to leave the premises. And at least in the case of 
staff and visitors, if they fail to comply, they will be arrested--
arrested for unlawful entry. Conviction for a violation of this rule 
will, according to the bulletin, be punished by a fine of not more than 
$1,000, imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both. The Senate, 
which happens to be housed in the same building as the House, is not 
subject to these same requirements.
  But is this decision based on science or is it based on the will and 
whim of the Speaker of the House of Representatives? Whatever the 
reason, the arrest of peaceful House staffers shows the total loss of 
political grace in the House of Representatives.
  I cannot fathom a legitimate reason to arrest a person in this 
building for not wearing a mask. I cannot fathom a legitimate reason 
for arresting anyone based on a failure to wear a mask.
  Members are not treated as the legitimate representatives of their 
constituents, as in fact they are, under our system of government, when 
they are subjected to this kind of manipulation and when they are 
subjected to this type of oppressive order. Staff, under this type of 
oppressive directive, aren't treated as hard-working, dedicated 
Americans, which truly they are. Instead, everyone who doesn't comply 
is deemed the enemy of the current House of Representatives. There is 
no room for disagreement or dissent.

  It is tragic, indeed, to see a key deliberative body where dissent 
and debate are supposed to be tolerated and appreciated and decided and 
have been not just for decades but for centuries--to see that turned 
into a place where disagreement and dissent are disdained and punished 
by arrests.
  Congress works on collegiality and respect. We need to get back to 
those basics.
  Regardless of what you might think about the coronavirus, about the 
vaccine, about masks, there is never a good reason to arrest someone 
for not wearing a mask.
  This decision falls into the larger context of the Centers for 
Disease Control's recent flip-flop on masks and the Biden 
administration's worrying push toward masks and vaccination mandates.
  The CDC issued updated recommendations earlier this week, stating at 
its outset that masks should be worn indoors in areas of ``substantial 
or high transmission,'' even by individuals who have been fully 
vaccinated.
  Now, this new guidance claims that ``[e]merging evidence suggests 
that fully vaccinated persons who do become infected with the Delta 
variant are at risk for transmitting it to others.'' But one glaring 
thing is missing from that conclusion: evidence backing up the CDC's 
claims.
  In fact, the CDC didn't publish any new research on the effectiveness 
of the COVID vaccines against the newer variants when it issued its 
latest edict. The CDC's website simply cites ``unpublished data'' from 
its own COVID-19 Response Team when it makes this new, rather 
significant, rather jarring, rather impactful, and rather unwise claim.
  The CDC is undermining its own credibility and, thus, I believe 
placing public health and safety at risk by going back and forth on 
recommendations and failing to be upfront about whether there is any 
actual reliable scientific evidence to support or compel those 
recommendations.
  In fact, even when asked questions by Members of Congress, the CDC is 
failing to respond. This is not hyperbole; this is not conjecture; this 
is based on my own personal experience. I will point to the fact that 
on April 24, more than 3 months ago, I sent a letter to the Centers for 
Disease Control asking a very simple question, a simple question that I 
would hope anyone here would want to be asked. I wanted to know why is 
it, when there are so many of our peer nations around the world that 
don't require masks to be worn on airplanes, for example, by children 
as young as 2, as we do in the United States--you know, many of our 
peer nations, a mask requirement may not kick in until 10 or 11 years 
old or, in some cases, 5 or 6 years old. But, here, the CDC has said 
that it has got to kick in at 2 years old. I would ask the question: 
Did any of these people who made this recommendation, who made that 
conclusion that 2-year-olds should have to travel with a mask, have 
they ever known an actual 2-year-old? Have they ever raised a child? 
Have they ever traveled on an airplane? Have they ever traveled in a 
car, in a bus, on a train, in the rain, anywhere with an actual child? 
This doesn't work.
  Now, when you add that to the fact that children react to the virus 
differently than adults do--and that is putting it mildly--when you add 
that to the fact that this creates other problems for children, not 
just for those handling them but for the kids themselves, it makes it 
especially important to know why.
  Now, my letter wasn't attempting to make any case. My letter was 
simply trying to obtain information. You see, because when the CDC 
makes these sweeping recommendations, and sometimes they like to make 
them feel easier by calling them recommendations, when, in fact, they 
precipitate a whole host of things that feel a whole lot more binding 
than recommendations. You see, because if you get on an airplane or a 
bus or a train or you go to a bus depot or a train station or an 
airport, and you have got a 2-year-old who won't wear a mask, as any 
red-blooded American 2-year-old will not do, you are told that you are 
subject to arrest and that you are violating Federal law if you do 
that. So it is not unreasonable to ask that they pony up with 
information. If they are going to make recommendations, they should 
explain to us what those recommendations are.
  So I asked them what scientific proof is there that a 2-year-old 
needs to wear a mask?
  Well, I sent that on April 24. I didn't hear anything on April 25 or 
April 26 or the 27th or the 28th, 29th, or 30th, or any of the days of 
the months of May or June or July, and we are almost to the end of the 
month of July. They didn't respond to this. I don't know why. Maybe 
they are really busy doing other stuff. Maybe they are really busy 
figuring out where they are going to flip-flop next and where they are 
going to issue their next edict that the American people are expected 
to follow, all

[[Page S5166]]

in the name of it being science, that we have to defer to blindly, 
without any evidence. But this isn't acceptable, and it doesn't inspire 
confidence, nor does it inspire confidence for an Agency that makes 
these sorts of recommendations that have a really significant impact to 
flip-flop and not justify its own analysis, not provide even a 
scintilla of scientific proof for what it did.
  So let's get back to its more recent flip-flop. The fact that it has 
flip-flopped this week, coupled with the fact that it hasn't backed up 
its other claims over the last few months, is understandably troubling 
to many of us, especially so, when you consider the fact that in my 
personal experience, I have been vaccinated. I chose to get the 
vaccine. I respect those who have chosen not to.
  Many of those I have known who have been reluctant to get the 
vaccine, who eventually got the vaccine, most of them, I would say, 
ended up getting it when they realized that certain aspects of life 
could be made mor predictable and more convenient if they did get the 
vaccine.

  Many people, when they walked into a hotel lobby or a restaurant or a 
grocery store or at Costco or at Sam's Club, if they would see signs 
saying that vaccinated persons need not wear masks, they would realize 
there is some benefit there; that if they got the vaccine, they could 
walk in there and say, well, I don't have to wear the mask.
  Now, obviously, we don't ever want to get to the point where somebody 
has to wear an arm band to prove whether they have been vaccinated or 
not. In fact, it would be an absolutely horrifying experiment that we 
should not attempt. But the fact is, that when people see that there 
might be some benefit, they are more likely to do it. If they see that 
something different will happen in their life if they get the vaccine, 
they are more likely to get it.
  But when you are constantly moving the goalpost, you are saying: 
``Here are the benefits of the vaccine. Oh, psych, just kidding. We are 
moving along. We are going to take those away,'' people are not going 
to get it. So if you want more people to get vaccinated, you darn well 
better have the CDC getting its act together, providing scientific 
evidence for what the CDC is recommending and what it is not.
  So, look, I am still waiting for answers from the CDC on my April 24 
letter. And I am still waiting for answers from the CDC when it comes 
to scientific evidence supporting their most recent flip-flop. But 
while we wait for those answers, and that clock is ticking--I don't 
know whether we need to start humming the tune to ``Jeopardy,'' but 
they do need to provide those answers. And while we wait for those 
answers, here are a few principles that I think might help guide some 
of our discussions:
  Our government needs to trust Americans to make these decisions, some 
of the most personal decisions that a human being can make for 
themselves. We need to trust the people's representatives in Congress 
to make decisions regarding the law. We need to be able to trust each 
other, to be decent, and to be kind when we disagree.
  We have to learn from our own history, from our own nature as 
individuals, and from the history that we have experienced as a nation. 
We cannot stand by while those in power simply decide on their own whim 
that they are going to arrest political opponents for disagreeing.
  At what point did we decide that it was OK to cross that threshold? I 
get it. We always need to be able to disagree without being 
disagreeable. Sometimes that is really hard. Sometimes all of us fall a 
little short of that mark. But I think all of us should be able to 
agree that we shouldn't arrest those who disagree with us merely 
because they disagree with us. That is wrong. We are better than that.
  This time calls for more political understanding and hardy, 
legitimate debate, not blind mandates and manipulation.
  We have to remember that, at its heart, at its core, government is 
not deity. It is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Government doesn't 
have eyes to see you. It doesn't have arms with which to embrace you. 
It doesn't have a heart with which to love you. Government is force. It 
is the official use of coercive force.
  Now, we need that. We need that to protect safety, to make sure that 
we don't hurt each other; that we are not harmed by others; that we 
don't take each other's possessions. But we have to be very careful how 
we operate it because otherwise force is just force. And if we start 
arresting everyone with whom we disagree, we are not going to be able 
to do the things we need to do, which is to make sure that government 
is there to prevent people from hurting each other and taking each 
other's things.
  We need to be kind to our neighbors, even when--especially when--we 
disagree. We need to be helpful and caring to those around us, even if 
they vote, feel, believe, or even act very differently than we do. We 
must not allow for arrests and mandates to Members of Congress and 
their staffs without providing sufficient evidence.
  And, yes, all of this stuff goes both ways. We all need to be 
respectful of each other's opinions. But, look, we are not talking here 
about activity that, by its very nature, is so harmful that it warrants 
the use of blunt political force in the form of an arrest.
  I cannot fathom a circumstance in which it is ever appropriate to 
arrest another human being for not wearing a mask, COVID or no COVID. 
That is not arrest material.
  In Congress and across the country, what we need now is a return to 
American graciousness. Our way of life and our precious Republic are at 
stake.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I am pleased to come and join my 
colleagues on the floor today and have a discussion about what is 
taking place here in this Capitol Building.
  Now, my colleague from Utah just mentioned something that I think is 
so important: being able to disagree agreeably, having a difference of 
opinion, and showing respect to other people.
  This Nation has remained strong and vibrant and free because we 
believe in robust, respectful, bipartisan debate. We do not lock up or 
silence or push or disappear people who disagree with us and our 
beliefs--and what we see happening in the House, where the Capitol 
Police would have the ability to haul staffers and visitors to jail for 
their decision not to wear a mask.
  Now, think about that. It would be not wearing a mask--a choice, 
making a choice to not wear a mask. So it is important for us to 
realize this is a difference of opinion.
  We have told the American people: Get vaccinated. I have chosen to be 
vaccinated. So have most of my family. Get the vaccine. That is kind of 
like your ticket to freedom from wearing a mask, if you choose. You 
don't have to put that mask on if you get vaccinated.
  But now what are we hearing? Masks are coming back. The science is 
very divided on the value of a mask. Is it just to protect you? Is it 
to protect others? Do masks serve as a disincentive for people to 
actually get the vaccine? Which is what we have encouraged people to 
do: Talk to your physician, make certain the vaccine is right for you, 
and get the vaccine so you don't have to wear the mask.
  Now, one of the things that we know is this: COVID is here to stay. 
We are going to continue to have COVID-19 in our presence. We know 
that, but we also know that this that is happening today is not 
necessarily about masks. This is about continuing to perpetrate these 
lockdowns; that we have had a series of lockdowns and scares and things 
where we are pulling back on freedom and giving power to the government 
and lessening the ability for individual choices. That is what this is 
about.
  There is no deliberation that appears to have gone into this newest 
mandate from the Speaker of the House, but you don't need deliberation 
when you have decided that you can just resort to threats such as this: 
locking up staffers and visitors if they do not wear a mask on the 
House side.
  Just over the past few days, we have seen high-profile Democrats 
buying right into this new tactic. Here is some of what we have been 
hearing. And, you know, as a mom and a grandmom, I hear a lot from moms 
and grandmoms. And my text threads and email and phone calls--Mr. 
President, you just wouldn't even believe it. They feel like

[[Page S5167]]

our colleagues across the aisle are just forgetting that science--
science--has weighed in on this issue.
  And now they are hearing these threats, threatening to keep our 
children out of school, not letting them go back to school in 
September. We don't need to go to school. Teachers unions, not sure 
they want to go back to school in September. But, oh, by the way, if 
you do go back to school, they might want to put your children in 
masks.
  Children, little kids in school, we have heard it from pediatricians, 
we have all read the articles--there are truly some adverse side 
effects to little children being told to wear a mask every day. There 
are physical, there are emotional, there are psychological adverse 
effects to these children--not mentioning some I have heard from 
pediatricians about the danger of children not knowing how to wear the 
mask. And they touch the mask, and then they put a dirty mask back up 
over their nose and their mouth and the concerns that that brings.
  What we are hearing about our children in school is of tremendous 
concern to the moms who are out there. We are hearing they are 
threatening families and small businesses with yet another lockdown to 
come.
  I have a lot of friends who are in the retail industry. And right 
now, you know what they are doing? They are beginning to get in 
merchandise for the fourth quarter. They have used their lines of 
credit to make certain there is merchandise in their stores.
  These are mom-and-pop stores. These are small businesses. They are on 
Main Street in every small town in this country, just like they are in 
Tennessee. And the decisions that are being made here make them very 
nervous and very uncomfortable because they are thinking: All right. 
What if we go into a lockdown? What if people can't get into my store? 
And here I have finally made it through COVID and I am looking forward 
to a good fourth quarter, and now we are getting this kind of 
information out of Washington, DC.
  All of this is not rational. There is no evidence--none--to suggest 
that yet another about-face on masking is going to keep people 
healthier, is going to make them healthier. There is no evidence for 
that.
  So let's call it what it is. This is leftwing hysteria. This is 
hysteria. Frighten people. Make them think a lockdown is coming. Make 
them think things are worse than what they are.
  No. This is the United States of America. We do not lock up people we 
disagree with. We don't push forward with this type of activity. We 
don't silence our opponents. We believe in free speech. We believe in 
individuals being able to make their choices.
  And I think that it is fair to say what the Speaker of the House has 
done is not trusting the science that brought us this vaccine. And 
thank goodness President Donald Trump brought about Operation Warp 
Speed and issued a challenge to our Federal Agencies, issued a 
challenge to our pharmaceutical companies, and said: Let's see if we 
can find a way to defeat this virus.
  There is a vaccine there. I think what you see happening with the 
Democrats and with the Speaker of the House is what we in Tennessee 
call having a good old-fashioned come-apart because they are not 
getting their way.
  And the American people do not believe that they are getting serious 
about doing serious business that the American people want to see: 
addressing out-of-control spending, addressing the needs of this 
country
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, in 1887, Lord Acton wrote a series of 
letters to Bishop Creighton, letters that would echo down across the 
centuries. Lord Acton wrote:

       I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and 
     King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that 
     they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the 
     other way against holders of power, increasing as the power 
     increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the 
     want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and 
     absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost 
     [exclusively] bad men, even when they exercise influence and 
     not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or 
     the certainty of corruption by authority.

  Mr. President, those words were true in 1887, and they are true 
today. If you want to understand how power corrupts and absolute power 
corrupts absolutely, look no further than the other Chamber in the U.S. 
Capitol.
  Speaker Nancy Pelosi is drunk on power. The orders that Speaker 
Pelosi is issuing are abusive and unprecedented. Speaker Pelosi has 
decreed to Members of the House of Representatives, elected by the 
people, that: If you dare walk onto the floor of the House of 
Representatives without a mask, I, Speaker Pelosi, shall fine you.
  Who the hell is she to be fining Members of the House?
  But you know what? She is not done with that. She is not done with 
disrespecting our Constitution, disrespecting our democratic system 
that elects leaders. She goes further, to the good men and women who 
work here in the U.S. Capitol. We are surrounded by men and women who 
have chosen to come and work for the public good, and here is what 
Speaker Pelosi has decreed: If you dare walk in the hallway without a 
mask, I, Speaker Pelosi, will arrest you. I will put you in jail. I 
will fine you.
  That is an absolute and complete abuse of power. She has no authority 
to disrespect the men and women who work here, to threaten you with 
physical harm, to threaten you with imprisonment.
  And why does she do so?
  She does so for one reason: political theater.
  We are coming through a very difficult year and a half. Our Nation 
and the world has endured a pandemic. We have collectively taken 
extraordinary steps to defeat this pandemic, and we are coming out on 
the other side. We saw our Nation, we saw the private sector come 
together with remarkable inventiveness and produce vaccines in record 
times, and we have seen hundreds of millions of people getting those 
vaccines. We are in the process of beating this pandemic.
  Not too long ago, the CDC recognized what was obvious then and is 
obvious now: vaccines work. And if you are vaccinated, you don't need 
to wear a mask.
  The CDC issued that ruling, and I remember that day well. I had been 
vaccinated a couple of months before then, and after allowing the time 
for the vaccine to become effective, I decided I was going to stop 
wearing a mask. Why is that? Because vaccines work, because I believe 
in science. So I stopped wearing a mask. And there were a handful of 
Senators on the Senate floor who had been vaccinated, who stopped 
wearing masks.
  Then the CDC, like the Oracle of Delphi, issued its proclamation. 
Hold on to your seats now. The CDC said that vaccines work, that if you 
are vaccinated, you don't need a mask. It was truly miraculous in this 
Chamber watching what occurred, as within days, every Senator in the 
Chamber began removing their masks, one after the other, after the 
other--not just Republicans; Democrats too. We all had our masks off.
  Mr. President, I ask you, the day before the oracle of Fauci spoke, 
did vaccines not work? Did science not operate? No. It was obvious then 
and it was obvious on the day that the oracle of the CDC spoke that 
vaccines work, which is why every Democrat took their mask off.
  But fast-forward to this week. The CDC issues the new proclamation. 
Apparently, according to the CDC, vaccines don't work anymore. That 
science thing? Inoperative. We have more important things to worry 
about, like politics.
  As an aside, has there ever been an institution in American public 
life that has more discredited itself more rapidly than the CDC? A year 
and a half ago, the CDC was one of the most respected medical and 
scientific organizations on the face of the planet. Today, the CDC has 
willingly allowed itself to be politicized, to behave as an arm of the 
DNC, and their credibility is in tatters. It is a joke.
  We have seen the emails from Dr. Fauci where he said in the midst of 
the pandemic: Masks don't work. They are not effective. People 
shouldn't use them.
  Then we saw him say: Oh, no, no, no; masks work. But I lied to the 
American people when I said they didn't

[[Page S5168]]

work because I didn't want them to wear masks because I wanted first 
responders to get them.
  Now, pause for a second and think, what the heck is a scientific 
leader doing lying to the American people supposedly for our own good? 
The willingness to twist facts to meet political expediency has been 
stunning.
  The CDC's ruling this week is not accompanied by any data. They did 
not roll out studies. They did not roll out facts. They did not say 
suddenly vaccines aren't working. Instead, they just said: Trust us. We 
have double-super-secret studies that we are not going to tell you 
based on double-secret-super data that we are not going to show you, 
but trust us because we behave like political hacks and obey us anyway.
  By the way, the CDC plays an interesting little game. The CDC says: 
These are recommendations. These are just recommendations.
  Then their faithful little foot soldiers, the Democratic 
officeholders, come in and make those recommendations mandates. And 
there is no one more willing to do so than Speaker Pelosi. And then, by 
the way, the local government Democrats who mandate ``you must obey the 
CDC,'' they throw their hands up and say: Hey, we are just following 
the CDC. And the CDC says: Hey, we are just making recommendations. And 
no one is accountable for anything.
  This makes no sense.
  One of the things the CDC rolled out this week is an edict that in 
schools, everybody must be masked--child, adult. It doesn't matter if 
you are vaccinated; it doesn't matter; you must wear a mask. Why? Who 
knows? It is not based on science, not based on medicine.
  This virus has been unusual. We have seen that in certain 
populations, COVID-19 can be profoundly deadly. If you are very 
elderly, if you have serious comorbidities, this virus can and has been 
deadly. But we have also seen among children that the odds of children 
getting seriously ill from COVID-19 are extremely low. We have seen 
that children have not proven to be a meaningful vector in the spread 
of this disease. The science doesn't support special rules for schools, 
but do you know what does? Politics. Because the teachers union bosses 
came to the CDC and said: We want this rule in place. And the partisan 
enforcers at the CDC said: Ma'am, yes, ma'am, we will issue the order 
demanded by the union bosses.
  Mr. President, give me any plausible argument that that is science, 
that that is medicine, that that is anything but rank politics. If a 
Democratic politician wants to say ``We are going to obey the union 
bosses,'' fine; that is their prerogative to do so. They can be held 
accountable by the voters. But the CDC is supposed to be following 
science. This is an abuse of power.
  Let me point out my view. I think we should not have government 
mandates concerning COVID-19. There should be no vaccine mandates. Joe 
Biden wants to mandate Federal employees must get the vaccine. Who the 
heck is the Federal Government to tell people they must stick a needle 
in their arm and inject themselves with a vaccine? We should have no 
vaccine mandates. We should have no mask mandates. We should have no 
vaccine passports.
  Let me be clear. I am someone who believes in vaccines. I have been 
vaccinated. Heidi has been vaccinated. My parents have been vaccinated. 
Heidi's parents have been vaccinated. But I also believe in individual 
choice. I believe in freedom. I believe in responsibility. It is your 
choice if you want to get vaccinated. It is not some drunk-on-power 
Democrat in Washington's choice to force you to do it.
  Doesn't anyone in the Democratic Party believe in medical autonomy? 
Doesn't anyone in the Democratic Party believe in medical privacy, or 
are you so willing to exert power that it doesn't matter what the 
people say?
  You know, one of the great ironies of the CDC's order: It will 
decrease the rate of vaccination in the United States. The CDC is 
telling America: Hey, this vaccine stuff doesn't work very well 
because, you know, if you get a vaccine, it doesn't matter; you have to 
put the same mask on, and you have to behave exactly the same. When the 
CDC rightly said ``If you are vaccinated, take your mask off,'' it 
encouraged people to get vaccinated. Hey, I want to take my mask off. 
Hey, I want to live my life. I want to go back to doing things that I 
like to do
  Let me point out one particularly ridiculous argument. This week, one 
of the commentators on one of the news networks said--I am paraphrasing 
here, but I am paraphrasing pretty closely--that anyone who isn't 
vaccinated is arrogant and rude and inconsiderate.
  I want to point out how imbecilic that argument is. So let's go back 
to this thing called science, which actually works. So here is the 
science: If you have been vaccinated, the odds of your getting COVID-19 
are exceptionally low. Depending on which vaccine you got, the 
percentages vary but let's say on the order of 3 to 5 percent. Even if 
you do get COVID-19, the odds of your getting a serious case of COVID-
19, a case of COVID-19 resulting in hospitalization or death, are 
extremely low. This vaccine has been very, very successful.
  If you understand that basic fact, then the next fact follows from 
it. If someone is unvaccinated and has COVID, they are little to no 
threat to someone who is vaccinated. If you have gotten your vaccine, 
you ought to be fine. The odds are very low that you are in jeopardy.
  Now, could someone who is unvaccinated give COVID to someone else who 
is unvaccinated? Absolutely. That is why we are encouraging people to 
get vaccinated. But, you know what, the person who is unvaccinated--it 
is their damn choice. We don't have to be a nanny state, making 
decisions for everybody else.
  I have to tell you, in my family, my dad didn't want to get 
vaccinated. My father, like the Presiding Officer right now, is a 
pastor. My dad is 82.
  When I got vaccinated, I called him and said: Dad, I want you to get 
vaccinated.
  He said: No, I don't want to. I don't trust it. It is new. I don't 
know. I don't want to.
  I spent about a month trying to convince my dad to get vaccinated. My 
father can be pretty stubborn. I know that is hard to believe. For 
those of you who know my dad, you know exactly that is the case.
  But, ultimately, I told my dad--I said: Look, you have been largely 
staying home during this pandemic. You want to get out. You want to be 
preaching in churches again. You want to be traveling. You want to be 
with people. Get the vaccine, and you will have the freedom to go do 
that.
  You know what. He did, and he did. He is now back in the pulpit. He 
is back preaching. He has freedom again. That was his choice.
  Why don't Democrats believe in individual choice anymore? Why do 
Democrats believe they can abuse power?
  And let me be clear. Nancy Pelosi is telling someone who is an 
employee of the House: If you are vaccinated and you don't wear your 
mask--she will arrest you and throw you in jail.
  How dare she? That is an abuse of power. And I will tell you, the 
American people are watching this political theater play out in 
Washington, and they understand what is coming next. They understand 
the same CDC that said, even though there is no science to back it up, 
even though there is no data to back it up, because the teachers union 
bosses want masks for everyone in schools, we will decree it. They 
understand the risk of what is coming next is that authoritarian status 
Democrats will order more shutdowns. We will order businesses shut 
down. We will order schools shut down. We will order churches shut 
down.
  As we look at the past year and a half, few things are clearer than 
that the shutdowns were a catastrophic mistake. The politicians who 
ordered the shutdowns committed a catastrophic mistake. They destroyed 
millions of small businesses--restaurants, bars, stores gone out of 
business.
  You look at great cities like New York City that became practically a 
wasteland. You look at something like Broadway. You think of all the 
actors and actresses, all of the writers and musicians, all of the 
sound and lighting engineers, all the carpenters, everyone who worked 
on Broadway--with a dictatorial flick of a pen, their jobs were 
destroyed. The American people are watching Democrats and recognize 
they are ready to do that again.
  For people who go to church, we have seen Democratic officeholders 
discriminate against churches and say: Worshipping God in church is a 
public

[[Page S5169]]

health menace. We have all seen the hypocrisy of the so-called experts 
who say: If you go outside and march and chant ``Black lives matter,'' 
zero risk of COVID transmission. Perfectly safe. If you go to church 
and sing ``Hallelujah,'' oh my God, everyone is going to die. People 
understand the hypocrisy of that.
  This virus isn't political. I recognize perhaps you could tongue-in-
cheek make an argument that since it originated in Wuhan, China, maybe 
it is a Communist. But the last I checked, viruses don't have political 
views. Do you know who does have political views? Politicians who are 
interested in their own power and want to convey a narrative regardless 
of the facts.
  What Speaker Pelosi is doing is wrong. What the CDC is doing--
corrupting science with politics--is wrong. And it is time for the U.S. 
Senate and the U.S. House to stand on the side of the American people, 
to stand on the side of freedom, and to say: It is your choice to go to 
work, to go to school, to go to church, to live your life free of Lord 
Acton's abuse of absolute power.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, as we have undertaken this conversation, I 
can't help but reflect on the fact that we are here in a representative 
body. We are here in order to have an exchange of ideas. We are here to 
engage in political speech, not the kind of political speech that 
people think of when they think of the word ``politics,'' where they 
think of something necessarily unpleasant. You know, when people hear 
the word ``political'' or ``politics,'' they think of the two great 
roots of the word ``politics.'' You have poly, which means many; and 
ticks, which are blood-sucking parasites. And they assume if it is 
political, it is unpleasant.
  But I am using the word ``political'' here in a different sense, the 
sense that refers to the body politic. It refers to the fact that we 
are doing the people's business. The exchange of information, of ideas 
is essential to everything we do.
  Then it occurs to me that the mask discussion does carry a deeper 
meaning here, a deeper meaning that takes into account the fact that 
when we communicate--sometimes with words, sometimes without words, 
sometimes in print, sometimes with the spoken word, sometimes without 
any words at all--we are engaging in activity that is protected by the 
First Amendment.
  Now, this is important to note in a wide swath of areas. It is 
important for how we worship or decline to do the same. It is important 
in how we express our viewpoints in our news, in our entertainment, 
media. In every aspect of our lives, it is important.
  It is regarded as especially important in a body politic that people 
be able to express their feelings about government and about the role 
of government. It is also especially important here that people be able 
to speak and otherwise communicate in a way that is clear and 
unvarnished, unfiltered.
  In fact, we go so far even as to protect Members of Congress from 
liability in what they would say on the floor of the Senate or the 
House of Representatives. We do that because we feel that a full, 
frank, informed discussion is important. We don't want Members being 
threatened with some sort of action, civil or criminal, based on things 
that they would utter here.
  So freedom of speech is important for all citizens. It is also 
important to make sure that that freedom of speech is protected here.
  It occurs to me that with the question of masks, the decision whether 
to wear a mask is not only deeply personal, but it is also, in this 
context, quite arguably expressive. Even before you utter a single word 
and regardless of whether you utter a single word, in many respects, 
your decision to wear a mask or not wear a mask is, itself, a form of 
expression. And as a form of suppression, it is protected.
  In a long line of cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has 
identified conduct that is expressive and therefore protected by the 
First Amendment, notwithstanding the fact that it doesn't necessarily 
involve words.
  When you merge that with another line of analysis under First 
Amendment jurisprudence, we remember the fact that it is a problem 
whenever government suppresses speech in one way or another. It is 
especially problematic when the government tries to compel speech. When 
the government tries to direct an individual that he or she must utter 
certain words in order to be compliant with the dictates of the 
government, that implicates the compelled speech doctrine, and the 
compelled speech doctrine is an especially rigid one. It is an 
especially rigid one with very good reason.
  You don't want to force people to say stuff. That is the not 
government's role. That is the whole idea behind the First Amendment, 
is that the government needs to stay out of our headspace. It needs to 
stay out of where we worship; it needs to stay out of our relationship 
with God; it needs to stay out of printing presses; and it needs to 
stay out of what we say.
  Sometimes what we say can consist of things that don't even involve 
words, something as simple as whether or not to wear a mask. In 
addition to all of the other public policy reasons, in addition to all 
the problems with having a CDC issuing these sweeping mandates and 
edicts without bothering to back up those edicts with scientific 
justification--even after months and months of receiving inquiries from 
Members of the U.S. Senate that they do so--separate and apart from all 
of those issues, I think it is important for us to look at the speech 
element, the expressive conduct that is inherent in whether or not you 
wear a mask, and whether or not by compelling people to wear a mask, 
you are compelling people to engage in state-sponsored speech. You are 
telling them that they must send a message, a message with which they 
may well disagree.
  Now, if I am wrong on this, if this is strictly a medical issue, then 
it will be backed up by scientific medical evidence. That is the nature 
of the problem that I have with the CDC's mandate, its ever-fluctuating 
mandate, its mandate that, as recently as a few days ago, flip-flopped 
yet again. If, in fact, it were medical and scientific, it would be 
backed up as such, but it is not.
  This is a form of compelled speech, not as we traditionally 
understand it because compelled speech usually involves the utterance 
of specific words. But we know that speech can be protected, even if it 
doesn't involve words, if it is a type of expressive conduct, which 
wearing a mask is, especially if as here. We don't have scientific 
evidence making it a medical issue.
  So I would ask the Speaker of the House: Are you really going to 
arrest people for not saying what you want them to say? That is not OK. 
If it would never be OK for you to arrest people for not saying words 
that you have prescribed for them, why is it OK for you to compel them 
to engage in expressive conduct now amounting to speech? It is not.
  Make no mistake, this isn't medical. This isn't scientific. If it 
were, we would have evidence of such. We don't
  In light of that, separate and apart from all the other problems--
problems that inhere in our form of government, problems that inhere in 
the fact we do, in fact, have three distinct branches of our Federal 
Government, that most laws are not Federal laws to begin with. Most 
laws originate in the States and in the localities. Most laws are not 
Federal, and they should never be.
  But for those things that should be Federal laws, we have got one and 
only one branch of government that makes laws. It is no coincidence 
that the very first clause of the very first section of the very first 
article of the Constitution provides:

       All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a 
     Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a 
     Senate and a House of Representatives.

  Article I, section 7 then goes on to outline the formula contemplated 
in article I, section 1. In article I, section 7, it says that you 
can't make a law under our form of government--at least not a Federal 
law--without passage in the House of Representatives and passage in the 
Senate and presentment to the President of the United States.
  In many respects, these recommendations issued by the CDC end up 
carrying the force of generally applicable Federal law. That is wrong. 
And in many, many respects, that is on us. We have done a horrible job 
over the last few years--I would say over the last few decades--I would 
say over the last 80, 85 years, really. I won't lay the

[[Page S5170]]

blame entirely at the feet of either party. In fact, this has happened 
under the control of different parties. It has happened with Senates 
and Houses of Representatives and White Houses of every conceivable 
partisan combination. We have seen the de facto outsourcing of our 
lawmaking authority to unelected, unidentifiable bureaucrats; men and 
women who, while well-educated, well-intentioned, hard-working, and 
highly specialized, don't work for the people. They don't work for you. 
You do not have the ability to elect them or unelect them.
  You don't have the authority to replace them. That is why it is so 
dangerous for us to give them this sweeping authority. And even where 
they don't technically have authority that extends very far--and in 
this case, it is far too far, as evidenced by the fact that anytime you 
get on an airplane or other mode of public transportation, you are told 
that, under penalty of Federal law, you must wear a mask.
  But I would ask, where is the act of Congress providing that? In what 
year did the Congress of the United States pass through the House and 
through the Senate and submit to the President of the United States for 
signature or veto a law stating that you must wear a mask on a plane or 
a train or a bus or in a bus depot or in a train station or in an 
airport under penalty of Federal law? There is no such law. You will 
not find it.
  Now, you will find some other stuff in which we delegated far too 
much authority and given broad authority to the executive branch--to 
people like the CDC--to issue regulations. But as a matter of proper 
form, whenever they exercise that power, it is not appropriate for that 
to take effect by itself. It is not really a law in the constitutional 
sense of the word unless Congress has enacted it.
  We have given them far too much power anyway. That is on us. We 
shouldn't do that. That is why I have been calling for years for 
reforms to this; why I have been calling for years for reforms, 
including but not limited to the REINS Act, which would require for any 
economically significant Federal regulation, before it takes effect, it 
must be passed by both Houses of Congress and presented to the 
President for signature or veto. It is why I have introduced the Global 
Trade Accountability Act, which would do for trade policy what the 
REINS Act does for regulatory policy. It is why we need to reform so 
many aspects of our laws, where we, as a practical matter, made the 
unelected and the unaccountable the supreme lawgivers, the lawmakers, 
law interpreters, and law enforcers.
  This is not just something that can lead to tyranny; it is the very 
definition of tyranny, as every signer of the U.S. Constitution 
understood well. It is why they went to great lengths to separate out 
these three branches of government.
  In addition to those problems with these edicts not based on science 
or medicine but based on political considerations that are ever-
changing--it is why they are so sweeping. It is why they are so 
troubling.
  But they are maybe even more troubling, still, for the additional 
constitutional reason that, at the end of the day, to whatever degree 
these are not rooted in medical science and fact--which I believe they 
are not or at least the CDC hasn't established as much, and they really 
do amount to something compelling expressive conduct, the suppression 
of an official orthodoxy mandated by the government--we shouldn't 
accept this. We shouldn't accept any affirmative legal obligation 
placed on those we represent, to whom and for whose been we have sworn 
an oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
States, which requires us to make any law we force on the American 
people. We have an obligation to them, a solemn obligation to make sure 
they are not subject to laws made by those not of their own choosing.
  It is these very features that James Madison had in mind when he 
authored Federalist No. 62. When he wrote, and I am paraphrasing a 
little bit here: It will be of little benefit to the American people 
that their laws may be written by men of their own choosing if those 
laws be so voluminous, complex, and ever-changing, if they can't 
reasonably understand what the law means and predict what it will say 
from one day to the next.
  Today--this week even--we have seen the law be so unpredictable and 
ever-changing, that we can't expect what the law says from one day to 
another. But even worse, contrary to what Madison assumed would always 
be the case because the Constitution required it, the laws aren't even 
being written by men and women of our own choosing but instead by 
unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who, despite how well-educated, 
well-intentioned, hard-working, and highly-specialized they may be, 
don't work for you, nor do they have authority under this document, to 
which we have all sworn an oath, to make laws.
  That is our power. Shame on us if we relinquish to them the power 
that only we can exercise, that is, itself, nondelegable. Shame on us, 
further, if we allow those same people who, lacking the authority to 
legislate in the first instance, then transgress another affirmative 
constitutional command by compelling compliance with official 
government-mandated orthodoxy.
  This cannot be. This cannot stand. I will not stand for it, and I 
will continue to draw attention to this issue until we have resolved 
the problem.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

                          ____________________