Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 193 (Wednesday, November 3, 2021)

[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 193 (Wednesday, November 3, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7701-S7713]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MOTION TO DISCHARGE

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, pursuant to S. Res. 27, the Committee
on the Judiciary being tied on the question of reporting, I move to
discharge the Committee on the Judiciary from further consideration of
Jennifer Sung, of Oregon, to be United States Circuit Judge for the
Ninth Circuit.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Under the provisions of S. Res. 27, there will
now be up to 4 hours of debate on the motion, equally divided between
the two leaders, or their designees, with no motions, points of order,
or amendments in order.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, for the information of the Senate, we
expect to vote to discharge the nomination to occur following the votes
that are scheduled to begin at 5:15 tonight. Therefore, Senators should
expect three rollcall votes at 5:15 p.m. These votes will be on the
confirmation of the Prieto and Nayak nominations and on the motion to
discharge the Sung nomination.

John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act

Madam President, in reference to what just occurred on the floor in
terms of voting rights, this is a low, low point in the history of this
body. A few moments ago, Senate Republicans, for the fourth time this
year, were presented with a simple question: Will they vote in favor of
starting debate--merely a debate--on protecting voting rights in this
country?
In today's case, they would join Democrats in proceeding to the John
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would reinstate longstanding
and widely embraced Federal protections on the right to vote.
With just one exception, Republicans once again obstructed the Senate
from beginning its process. Given the chance to debate in what is
supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body, Republicans
walked away.
Today's obstruction was only the latest in a series of disturbing
turns for the Republican Party. For over a half a century, the policies
of the Voting Rights Act have commanded bipartisan support in this
Chamber. It has been reauthorized five times, including by Presidents
Nixon, Reagan, and Bush. Many of my Republican colleagues in office
today have worked in the past to improve and approve preclearance
provisions similar to the ones contained in today's proposal.
It was good enough for Republicans back then; it should have been
good enough for them today. But after today's vote, it is clear that
the modern Republican Party has turned its back on protecting voting
rights. The party of Lincoln is becoming the party of the Big Lie.
Democrats have laid out the facts for months: we are witnessing at
the State level the greatest assault on voting rights since the era of
segregation. Before our very eyes, the heirs of Jim Crow are weakening
the foundations of our democracy.
And by blocking debate today, Senate Republicans are implicitly
endorsing these partisan actions to suppress the vote and unravel our
democracy.
We have said all year long that if there is anything worth the
Senate's attention, it is protecting our democracy. We have tried for
months to get Republicans to agree. We have lobbied Republicans
privately. We have gone through regular order. We have attempted to
debate them on the floor.
We have presented reasonable, commonsense proposals in June, August,
October, and now in November. Each

[[Page S7702]]

time, I personally promised my Republican colleagues they would have
ample opportunities to voice their concerns, offer germane amendments,
and make changes to our proposal.
At no point did we ever ask them to vote for our legislation. We have
simply been trying to get our Republican friends to start debating,
just as the Senate was intended to do.
On the floor, off the floor, we held public hearings, group
discussions with Senators and one-on-one meetings with the other side
to try and win some support. Senators Manchin, Kaine, Tester, King,
Durbin, Klobuchar, Leahy, and more have all met with Republicans to
initiate a dialogue. And at every turn, we have been met with
resistance.
The sole exception in 10 months has been our colleague, the Senator
from Alaska, who voted in favor of advancing today's legislation.
Today, I thank her for working with us in good faith on this bill.
But where is the rest of the party of Lincoln? Down to the last
Member, the rest of the Republican conference has refused to engage,
refused to debate, and even refused to acknowledge that our country
faces a serious threat to democracy.
Madam President, the Senate is better than this. A simple look at our
history shows we are better than this. The same institution that passed
civil rights legislation, the New Deal, the Great Society, and the
bills of Reconstruction should be more than capable of defending voting
rights in the modern era.
But, as anyone who has been here more than a few years knows, the
gears of the Senate have ossified over the years. The filibuster is
used far more today than ever before--by some measures, 10 times as
much compared to decades past. Some might wonder if any of the great
accomplishments of the past would have a chance of passage today. Would
the Social Security Act pass the modern Senate? What about the Medicare
and Medicaid acts? What about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? We sure
hope they would, but it is difficult to see with the way this Chamber
works today.
As I said a few weeks ago, I believe the Senate needs to be restored
to its rightful status as the world's greatest deliberative body. It
has earned that title precisely because, yes, debate is the central
feature of this body, but at the end of the day, so is governing, and
so is taking action when needed once the debate has run its due course.
This is an old, old fight in this Chamber. Over 100 years ago, the
great Senator of Massachusetts, Henry Cabot Lodge, said: ``To vote
without debating is perilous, but to debate and never vote is
imbecile.'' Imbecile. ``To vote without debating is perilous, but to
debate and never vote is imbecile.'' We should heed those words today
and explore whatever path we have to restore the Senate so it does what
its Framers intended: debate, deliberate, compromise, and vote.
We can't be satisfied in this Chamber with thinking that democracy
will always win out in the end if we aren't willing to put in the work
to defend it. It will require constant vigilance to keep democracy
alive in the 21st century.
Madam President, just because Republicans will not join us doesn't
mean Democrats will stop fighting. This is too important. We will
continue to fight for voting rights and find an alternative path
forward, even if it means going at it alone, to defend the most
fundamental liberty we have as citizens.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The junior Senator from Wyoming.
Ms. LUMMIS. Madam President, I am joining my colleagues today to
highlight the real harm that the President's overreaching vaccine
mandates are causing the people of Wyoming and the United States.
While I am vaccinated and support others making the decision to get
the COVID-19 vaccine to protect themselves, I am very concerned about
unacceptable actions by the executive branch to force Americans to get
the vaccine. Frankly, I cannot stay silent about these blatant
violations of personal freedom.
Over the last several months, the President has signed numerous
Executive orders mandating vaccines for Federal workers, contractors,
and employers with over 100 workers. This is unacceptable. These
mandates are far-reaching and burdensome.
Additionally, these mandates will not achieve the desired results of
stopping the spread of COVID-19. Instead, they will only further
politicalize healthcare choices, sow greater discord across the Nation,
and exacerbate our employment crisis. I worry they will also further
harm our supply chain issues. All of these should concern every
American, particularly with the holiday season rapidly approaching.
Consumers are going to face empty shelves in stores, and for what is
available, prices will continue to rise.
In the freight industry, these mandates could mean that up to one-
third of employees will be leaving their jobs. On Monday, POLITICO
noted that several trucking companies are looking to end their work
with the Federal Government as the vaccine mandate deadlines loom
closer. This doesn't only impact the shipping industry but also our
defense and law enforcement sectors as well. Former Deputy Under
Secretary for Industrial Policy William Greenwalt noted that ``even a
couple of welders or engineers who walk off their jobs on a highly
classified program could wreak havoc with our national security.''
Meanwhile, it is more than a couple of individuals who are looking at
leaving. Defense contractor Raytheon says they expect to lose thousands
of employees when the mandate goes into effect.
Finally, I would like to give an example of how this is impacting my
home State of Wyoming. Across the Nation, we are facing nursing
shortages, but in Wyoming, it is becoming critical. I have heard over
and over again from my hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes that they
just don't have the staff. Many have left the field, whether due to the
strain of COVID-19 or because they believe they can find better work as
traveling nurses. This has left our healthcare community shortstaffed.
If we lose additional nurses from these vaccine mandates, my State is
looking at losing healthcare capabilities. This means turning away
patients and potentially closing nursing homes. These patients, at the
end of their lives, frequently have nowhere else to go. If there is no
one else to care for them, the healthcare system will be at the end of
its rope trying to find ways to care for these patients.
For these reasons, I cannot support these mandates, nor should anyone
else. Knowing the damage these mandates will cause, the President must
immediately rescind these Executive orders and find a better way to
keep our Nation safe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BRAUN. We are here today because of the vaccine mandate. When I
got back home over the break, I never had so many friends and fellow
business owners who actually made it a point to find me and tell me
that this can't be happening.
With the full navigation that we have taken through COVID, I have
always been clear: Take it seriously. We don't know how this is going
to end up.
It has been over a year and a half. The point back in Indiana is that
most businesses, schools, all organizations have put protocols in place
to where it has not been an issue. It has been a nonissue of, really,
transmissions within the workplace.
We finally get through it, we found the rhythm of what works, and now
you have a mandate that says: Hey, Federal employees, Federal
contractors--they contacted me too. Some think they will lose 10 to 25
percent of their workforce. Businesses are in the same place.
When you look at what we have done, where we are, it just does not
make sense. That is why I am leading the Congressional Review Act
effort to try to get all Senators on my side--some on the other side of
the aisle--to say: Hey, we don't need it. Enough is enough.
Look at the practical reasons because businesses and other
organizations have tried and they have been successful at keeping their
employees and their customers safe and healthy. This is coming at a
point in time where it is going to be salt in the wound. It

[[Page S7703]]

will be the biggest wallop these entities have had, especially when we
have been paying them to keep their employees, up to 500 employees. Now
we are going to force them to lose them en masse down to 100. It
doesn't make sense. That is why I am glad I am leading the effort and
glad other Senators are here talking about it.
Please pull back on something that is beyond the pale, that we don't
need, and that is going to hurt the places we have been trying to help.
I yield to the Senator from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, in December, President Biden
promised he would not require Americans to be vaccinated or require
that they carry vaccine passports. Less than 10 months into his
Presidency, I think he must have forgotten what he said, breaking
promise after promise and going back on his word. How can the American
people believe anything he says?
Americans are sick and tired of the government telling them what to
do and are more than capable of making the right choices to protect
themselves, their families, and their neighbors. But now, because King
Biden has gone back on his word or forgotten what he said, millions of
Americans are facing an ultimatum: Get the vaccine or lose your job.
For companies, it is either make your employees get the jab or lose
your Federal contract.
This is a complete overreach of power. Biden wants to control our
lives and make the government be the authority in every area of your
life. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Biden has this
power--nowhere.
Listen, I had COVID. I am grateful that I was able to get vaccinated.
I hope that all Americans talk with their doctors and consider making
the same decision. It is a personal decision every individual gets to
make, but that is not how President Biden sees it. That is why I
introduced multiple pieces of legislation to push back on these
unconstitutional vaccine mandates.
I have introduced the Freedom to Fly Act to prohibit the TSA from
requiring Americans to show proof of vaccine or produce a vaccine
passport and protect the privacy of American families. I don't believe
that the Federal Government has any business requiring travelers to
turn over their personal medical information to catch a flight.
I introduced the Stop Mandating Additional Requirements for Travel
Act to prohibit the feds from requiring Americans to wear masks on
public transportation like Amtrak or on airplanes.
I also introduced the Prevent Unconstitutional Vaccine Mandates for
Interstate Commerce Act, which would prevent Federal Agencies like the
Department of Transportation from requiring proof of vaccination for
companies trying to do business across State lines.
Last month, I introduced legislation to prevent vaccine mandates from
being tied to a few of our Federal assistance programs, like Medicare,
Social Security, food stamps, and public housing. I hoped everyone in
this Chamber would have agreed that we shouldn't force struggling
American families to choose between Social Security disability checks
and a personal health decision.
Most Americans would be shocked if a politician said it is acceptable
to deny someone health insurance or food stamps simply because of their
vaccine status. Sadly, Madam President, this is exactly what happened
on this floor last month. All I did was request that Americans,
regardless of vaccine status, should be able to access a few of our
most essential government programs. My Democratic colleagues disagreed
every time. The Democratic Party leaves no room for disagreement. They
leave no room for compromise. I think it is shameful.
But unlike Joe Biden and Democrats in Washington, I don't believe
that government knows better than the American people. My parents
didn't have much of a formal education, but they worked hard and made
the choices they felt were right for the health and well-being of our
family.
As Biden tries to control the lives of every American family, our
economy is suffering. Inflation is already skyrocketing, and these
vaccine mandates are going to add to it.
Only weeks ago, the Federal Reserve published its latest Beige Book
report. In the report, the Fed found that vaccine mandates were widely
cited by businesses as a reason for low labor supply and hiring and
retention issues. The Federal Reserve admitted what I have been warning
about for weeks: Joe Biden's unconstitutional vaccine mandates are
causing higher turnover, driving Americans out of their jobs, and
further fueling the devastating supply chain and inflation crisis
plaguing American families.
When I think about the impact of vaccine mandates, I think about my
dad. My dad was a truckdriver. Anyone who has driven trucks or has been
close to someone in that line of work knows how demanding the job can
be. There is already a driver shortage in this country, and we can't
afford to lose any more due to unconstitutional vaccine mandates.

Consider first responders. Dozens of Massachusetts State troopers are
threatening to resign over vaccine mandates. Los Angeles County could
lose up to 10 percent of its police force. Chicago may see up to 50
percent of its police refusing to comply with vaccine mandates. Seattle
is preparing for a mass exodus of officers in the coming weeks due to
people who are quitting over vaccine mandates.
For the past several months, we have been seeing rises in violent
crime and problems in retaining police officers. We should not add to
that ongoing problem by forcing police officers to choose between their
jobs and taking a vaccine.
I have called on Secretary Raimondo and Secretary Buttigieg to come
before the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee to explain
what they are doing to prevent U.S. supply chains from completely
crumbling under Biden's failed policies and mandates. Sadly, I haven't
heard a word from them, but I do see them on TV all the time. These
people love to get on CNN and be commentators. That is not their job.
Their job isn't to just point out a problem; their job is to fix it.
Now, we have all seen the disruption that this virus has caused. Many
of us know someone who has fallen extremely ill or who has died because
of COVID. That is why I am very appreciative of all of those who have
worked so hard to develop the vaccine. But I am 100 percent against
these unconstitutional mandates.
Being vaccinated is a decision every American gets to make for
himself. It is an authoritarian overreach by King Biden to threaten
people with job loss unless they get the vaccine. Think about it. Why
on Earth would a President do something they know is going to cost
someone their job?
Our job within government is to provide people with good information
so they can make informed decisions and help create jobs, not kill
them. But we are seeing that everything Joe Biden does makes things
worse for families and businesses in Florida and across our great
country. It is time he rescinds his proposed unconstitutional vaccine
mandate.
I yield the floor to my colleague from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the Senator from Florida.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy
with my friend Senator Marshall.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, it is no secret that President
Biden's COVID-19 vaccine mandates have drawn major opposition here in
the Senate. My Republican colleagues and I have introduced multiple
pieces of legislation that chip away at the various impractical,
unethical, and downright unconstitutional aspects of this latest power
grab.
Last week, I introduced the Keeping our COVID-19 Heroes Employed Act,
which would pull essential workers out from under these mandates and
stop the White House from unilaterally firing them for refusing to
submit to a shot. Think about how ludicrous that is. This, of course,
is the heart of the issue.
These pieces of legislation are not anti-vaccine. In fact, our
opposition isn't about vaccines at all. I have been vaccinated, and I
encourage people to talk to their physicians. This is all about the
precedent the Biden administration is trying to set; namely, that it

[[Page S7704]]

is acceptable for the Federal Government to stand between a patient and
their doctor and to overrule science and personal choice in the name of
their personal political agenda.
I think my colleague Senator Marshall knows a thing or two about
preserving the importance of that doctor-patient relationship.
Is that correct, Senator?
Mr. MARSHALL. It is, indeed. Thank you so much, the senior Senator
from Tennessee, for asking me about something so near and dear to my
heart--the patient-physician relationship.
I just want to start my remarks by saying that I support the vaccine.
I support the vaccine, but I also support an individual's right to
decide whether he wants the vaccine or not. That is why I think it is
so important to have this patient-physician relationship.
I had the duty and the honor to treat thousands of women with a
virus. I learned very quickly that the same virus could cause different
problems for different patients, and it was based on their previous
medical histories and their underlying medical problems as to what my
advice might be.
What my concern today is, is that so many of these heroes of
yesterday, the COVID-19 heroes of yesterday, are now being treated so
poorly. They are being told to get the jab or else lose their jobs.
This mandate is going to lead to unemployment. It is going to lead to
more inflation and further disrupt our supply chain. I just wish I
could paint a face of all of these people from Kansas who are reaching
out to me, saying: Please don't make me make this choice between the
jab or my job.
I think of the nurses whom I worked with in Liberal, KS, when the ICU
was overflowing. I think of the nuclear engineer folks and the union
workers at Wolf Creek Nuclear energy who kept our electricity on. I
think of those union workers who work for the Department of Defense
contracts in the aerospace industry, and now they are being kicked in
the face. They are being told that they are no longer essential, that
they are no longer heroes.
Senator Blackburn, I am supposing there are heroes in Tennessee who
are now being forgotten as well.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes, indeed. You are correct, Senator Marshall.
As I have said before, Tennessee is a supply chain and logistic
State: shipping, transportation, manufacturing. These are things that
help form the backbone of our economy, and those industries employ
thousands upon thousands of people in our State.
I will tell you, these thousands of people are speaking up, just as
you have said they are speaking up in Kansas. Every day, I hear from
people who see what is happening on the ground, from small business
owners to truckdrivers, and they are sounding the alarm bells. They
know that Joe Biden's mandate will destroy their industries. They are
just not asking for carve-outs; what they are saying is, give us a plan
A, a plan B, a plan C; give us options.
Senator Marshall, I believe you have taken a different approach to
pushing back on some of these mandates.
Mr. MARSHALL. Well, thank you Senator. Indeed, there are more options
out there. There are, indeed, more tools in the tool shed that we can
use. We plan to oppose any efforts to enforce Joe Biden's vaccine
mandate with all the other tools at our disposal, including blocking
cloture on any continuing resolution in the absence of language
protecting Americans from the mandates. In fact, 50 GOP Senators
recently supported this as an amendment to the CR in September.
Senator Blackburn, I know that you also would be concerned about
using any type of future funding to enforce this unconstitutional
mandate.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes, indeed, Senator. I am very concerned.
The Biden administration has, indeed, weaponized the U.S. Government
against workers who love their jobs, against workers who are trying to
earn a living and support their families. We have to stand up and
defend them. Think about it. The Biden administration is using taxpayer
dollars to implement a program designed to fire the very people we need
to repair our supply chains, to bring manufacturing plants back online,
and to keep the public safe.
Yes, our law enforcement officers are very concerned about this, but
don't take my word for it. Ask some of these law enforcement unions.
Ask the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association,
and the National Border Patrol Council what will happen if these
mandates force them to fire their unvaccinated agents and officers.
They are waving red flags right now because these mandates aren't just
impractical and unethical; they are dangerous. They will take these men
and women off the frontlines and send them to the unemployment line and
make us vulnerable.
Am I correct on this point, Senator Marshall?
Mr. MARSHALL. Senator Blackburn, absolutely. I can't agree with you
more.
One of the big concerns I have is of our safety as well as our
national security. I know that both Tennessee and Kansas have Army and
National Guard units, and I have been told that perhaps half of the
enlisted soldiers have not had their vaccines yet, and I encourage them
to do that. But if they get separated from the military, it is going to
leave a huge hole in our national security.
I am also concerned about those Active-Duty soldiers who are now
being separated from the military as well for refusing the vaccine, and
I am concerned about what is going to happen to their records going
forward. I was so discouraged when I found out the White House
suggested these soldiers get a dishonorable discharge.
In case you don't know what a ``dishonorable discharge'' means, you
could be treated like a felon. You lose your VA benefits, and you may
lose some of your Second Amendment rights and some of your voting
rights as well.
Certainly, again, there is the impact on national security in losing
thousands of our soldiers.
Senator Blackburn, I am sure that you have so many people who are
reaching out to you of the COVID-19 heroes of Tennessee. I appreciate
your bringing this bill to the floor, and I am so happy and honored to
support it.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Senator.
I am appreciative to the Senator from Kansas and to all of my
colleagues who have joined me on the floor today to fight this
dangerous precedent set by these mandates.
I think it is so vitally important for my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle to understand that the American people are not
interested in playing chicken with Joe Biden--not at all. This isn't
contrarian politics to them; this is a line in the sand between a
power-hungry President who wants to strip them of their fundamental
rights and get them fired from their jobs.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Alabama.
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, during the recent Senate Armed
Services Committee hearing, I asked the Secretary of Defense what I
thought was a simple question: As the leader of the Department of
Defense, was he against dishonorable discharges for members of the
military who decided not to get the COVID vaccine. He hemmed and hawed
around, but he never answered my question. But, to me, it is simple.
The answer should be that we will not dishonorably discharge those who
serve honorably.
Our country is defended by the bravest men and women in the world.
All raised their hands and pledged their lives to defend our Nation and
our way of life. Our servicemembers stand watch while we go to work,
while we spend time with our families, and while we enjoy freedoms they
vow to protect.
When COVID broke out, our military was there for America. Military
members were mobilized in all 50 States to serve as nurses and doctors
at hospitals. They drove ambulances and set up food banks. They
delivered critical supplies. They worked to keep order. But how does
the President thank them for their service? With a dishonorable
discharge for deciding not to take the vaccine. That is ridiculous.
Receiving a dishonorable discharge means they will lose all of their
veterans' benefits and their pensions. In some States, it is on par
with having a felony conviction. That means they lose their ability to
vote or to carry a gun, not to mention what it does to their ability to
find a new job. A dishonorable discharge is and should continue to be
handed down for only the

[[Page S7705]]

most reprehensible conduct in the military.
Now, I am for the vaccine. I have taken it, and my family has taken
it, and I continue to encourage others to talk about it and talk to
their doctors about it. I also respect the chain of command. I know how
important it is for soldiers to follow orders. But this vaccine is
still new, and I am sure the Department of Defense can look at other
ways to manage our force rather than to put a stain on the reputations
of the men and women who wanted to serve and have served their country,
which brings me to another point about the impact of the Biden
administration's vaccine mandates.
When President Biden made his sweeping vaccine mandates, he did so
with the hubris or excessive confidence that Americans would just
support the policy simply because it was his competent administration
that implemented them, but the mandates are shortsighted, they are ill-
conceived, and they threaten our national security. Here is how.
First, it creates a false choice for our defense contractors. They
are forced to choose between coming to their job and working to support
our military or taking a new vaccine that they don't want. Their
decision should be between their doctor and their patient.
Second, it puts the important and critical performance of our
defensive industry in jeopardy. Alabama alone is home to 5,000 defense
contractors. When these firms are unable to perform, our country is at
risk.
Third, the guidance for compliance is changed with little or no
warning. This moving of regulatory goalposts creates uncertainty and
drives up compliance costs, especially for smaller firms that lack
large HR departments.
So last week, I called on the Senate Armed Services Committee
Chairman Jack Reed to schedule a hearing on this issue. I want to hear
straight from the small business owners who are struggling to figure
out how to comply. We need to know just how disruptions in their
ability to complete their work may impact the defense supply chain.
I also want to hear from expert witnesses within the Department of
Defense. We need to have a full picture of the current state of vaccine
compliance.
If the Senate were to take action on a solution, it is critical that
we have all the facts.
I also sent a letter to the President, urging him to reverse course
on his Federal contractor mandate.
On Monday, the White House backed down from their arbitrary deadline
of December 8, with the announcement of new flexibilities in their
guidance. While this step is in the right direction, they haven't gone
far enough.
The vaccine mandate is still a compliance burden on small
contractors, no matter how flexible the White House tries to make them.
Our workforce still will be unnecessarily impacted and our national
security will still be at risk.
So I would encourage the White House to focus on protecting
Americans' liberties while pursuing a holistic strategy to combat
COVID.
It is time that President Biden recognizes that mandates are not the
answer; frank conversations between doctors and patients are the
answer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the United States is facing economic
challenges that we haven't experienced in this country for decades. The
supply chain crunch is leading to backlogged ports, and that, in turn,
is spilling over into empty shelves. Inflation is exacting a punishing
toll on American families; on their budgets, on their quality of life.
And it is not the well-off families that are being most harmed by it,
no. It is those who are least prepared to endure that. It is America's
poor and middle class; those who are working hard to survive from day
to day, trying to reach that American dream, trying to ascend the
economic ladder that the American dream has long enabled.
Now, each of these problems, in its own right, would be a really
serious and vexing primary concern for most people and most businesses,
even during normal economic times. But these are far from normal
economic times.
In fact, when businesses are polled, their primary concern isn't
about any of these things. It is the labor shortage. Businesses are
struggling to find workers. The Joint Economic Committee Republicans
released a report recently explaining that Americans have lost many
vital connections to work. Government policies and social pressures are
leading to a lower labor force participation rate than at any time in
decades.
This trend is worrying not only because work helps Americans put food
on the table--and it does, and it is necessary to do that--but also
because work often provides a sense of accomplishment and belonging and
self-worth. Work is a social good in its own right.
But businesses across the country are struggling to find workers, and
that is leading to more of these same problems, leading to higher
prices on things that people need to buy. All this is making everything
else more complicated, more difficult for America's poor and middle
class.
I have spoken to businessowners in Utah, who are closing their doors
for days each week because they can't find workers. Some businesses are
offering extremely generous salaries and signing bonuses for those who
are willing to work. Nonetheless, they are still struggling to find
employees.
Now, work is often the primary connection Americans have with peers.
Work provides a sense of involvement, taxpayer responsibility, and
community with others. Work is also the way we get things done. It is
how we manufacture, farm, mine, and build. Work is a requisite for
prosperity at any level, in any form.
Unfortunately, President Biden is making work more difficult and less
enticing, increasingly less possible. Raising taxes on Americans gives
them less incentive to work, and as the Penn Wharton Budget Model
shows, the Democrats' trimmed-down plan would cost almost $4 trillion
over 10 years and cost American taxpayers $1.5 trillion in new taxes.
Through his unconstitutional and sweeping vaccine mandate, President
Biden is forcing countless American workers out of a job and preventing
others from joining or rejoining the workforce. This is far from a mere
abstract constitutional transgression. This is a constitutional
violation that goes far beyond the text of a document that extends
deeply into the lives of the American people, especially the poor and
the middle class.
I have now heard from over 300 Utahans who are at risk of losing
their livelihoods due to this mandate. Their stories are gut-wrenching.
Their stories are tragic. Their stories remind me of how indefensible
and inexcusable and immoral this vaccine mandate truly is.
These are ordinary, everyday, hard-working Americans who all too
often are just trying to make ends meet, put food on the table, provide
for their families, and otherwise get by.
Many of them have legitimate medical, moral, or religious objections.
Many of them work for employers who have no desire to implement the
mandate and who themselves are worried about their ability to keep
their businesses open.
Now, I have heard from a number of Utah businesses whose management
and ownership have expressed these exact same feelings, and I have
heard from Utah workers who have expressed these feelings over and over
and over again. Let me tell you about a few people I have heard from
who have described this awful situation.
Now, one Utah business in the high-tech space has expressed concern
about losing valuable employees due to the mandate. The business that I
am referring to at the moment has implemented policies to encourage
vaccination and recognizes, of course, the value that vaccination can
bring to the workforce. Nonetheless, the businessowners are
uncomfortable with making these decisions for their employees.
The business's management said: ``We feel strongly that it is not the
government's right to require vaccination.''
They are absolutely right.
A growing Utah food manufacturer with 350 employees is very worried
about the mandate's impact on that company's ability to keep product
moving. This business plays an important role in food supply chains in
Utah, throughout the Western United States, and throughout the country.

[[Page S7706]]

Leaders of this business said: ``This mandate is government
overreach, is outside the scope and purpose of OSHA, and will have dire
consequences on our company and our economy in this extremely tight
labor market.''
They know that some of their workforce would quit if the mandate were
enforced.
Another Utah business is similarly worried. This larger operation's
leadership said: ``We are in a difficult labor situation. It is a daily
struggle to be fully staffed and produce the products our customers
expect. Some of our employees have stated they will quit if forced to
be vaccinated. Any disruption in our labor force will be critical to
our operations, and a disruption in our labor force not only means some
of our customers may not receive product they expect, it may mean
local, time-sensitive supply would not get processed. That disruption
would be devastating.''
Now, it is important here that I not be misunderstood. I am against
the mandate, but I support the vaccine. I have been vaccinated. I have
encouraged others to be vaccinated. These vaccines are helping
countless people avoid the harms associated with COVID-19. But this
mandate is already doing serious harm to our economy and to people who
want the right, the basic human right, to make their own medical
decisions.
That is why I, along with my colleague, the Senator from Kansas, Dr.
Marshall--Senator Marshall and I have sent a letter directly to the
majority leader, Senator Schumer. We have advised him, months before
the current spending period ends in December, that we will oppose any
funding legislation that enables the enforcement of President Biden's
employer vaccine mandate.
It is essential to remember here that Congress, the branch of
government most accountable to the people at the most regular
intervals, this is where the Constitution places the power of the
purse. This is where the Constitution places the power to pass
legislation. Congress, not the President, has the authority to decide
how Federal funds are spent.
Now, we believe our funds would be misspent in this way or any
endeavor that would harm Utahans and Kansans and all Americans, would
worsen our difficult economic situation, or would take away fundamental
medical freedoms.
This now marks the thirteenth day that I have come to the Senate
floor to oppose the mandate. I am going to continue to do so for as
long as it takes to beat the mandate. I encourage all of my colleagues
to join me in this effort.
And when I say that, I want to be clear. I am not speaking to one
side of the aisle or the other. I invite all to join me in this cause.
Why? Well, because Americans overwhelmingly--regardless of whether they
live in a red State or a blue State or a purple State, Americans
overwhelmingly oppose this mandate.
According to a poll recently reported on in Axios--hardly a rightwing
publication--revealed that 14 percent--just 14 percent--of Americans
believe that the response to someone not receiving the vaccine should
involve them losing their job.
Just 14 percent of Americans agree with President Biden that you
should have to choose between keeping your job and getting a vaccine
that might go against your religious beliefs or that might worsen a
preexisting medical condition that has caused your doctor to advise you
to be cautious in getting the vaccine.
These decisions are not those of the President of the United States
to make. You see, he doesn't have that power. My copy of the
Constitution says that the power to make law rests in this branch of
government, the legislative branch, the Congress. And my copy of the
Constitution says that he can't make law, which he essentially did when
he purported to have and purported to plan to exercise the power
unilaterally, acting alone, to require every worker at every employer
that has more than 100 employees--more than 99 employees to get the
vaccine or be fired.
This isn't right. Deep down, the American people know it isn't right.
Deep down they know that this is not a partisan issue. This is an
unabashed power grab by the President of the United States. It is not
one that is of the sort that the American people will accept kindly.
I have said before, I am not sure I can think of a more egregious
example of a President exercising power that is not his own in many
decades.
This is, in some ways, reminiscent of President Harry Truman's
decision to seize every steel mill in America in order to make sure
that the output could be dedicated to the Korean war effort. The
American people didn't smile upon that one. Neither did the Supreme
Court of the United States, which, within weeks of President Truman's
action on April 8, 1952, decided that he didn't have that authority.
Some may ask: Well, if it is so unconstitutional here, why hasn't the
Supreme Court acted?
I will tell you why. Because President Biden hasn't had the basic
decency to issue an order explaining a basis for his authority and
providing a basis for someone to challenge the legitimacy of his
authority to order every business with more than 99 employees--to force
its entire workforce to get vaccinated. He hasn't had the decency to do
that.
Consequently, no one can sue yet. Consequently, employers everywhere
with more than 99 employees are forced to guess as to what it would
look like. And in the meantime, their lawyers with good reason and
their risk management departments and their human resources departments
are understandably saying: We don't want to get caught flatfooted,
especially because we have been threatened as employers with $70,000
per day, per person, mounting civil monetary penalties.
This would be crippling to any business.
So what are they doing?
Well, they are getting ahead of it. They are guessing as to what the
most extreme version of the OSHA mandate might look like, and then they
are exceeding that. And they are already in the process of threatening
termination and, in some ways, in some cases, imposing it.
In many cases, they are not even having the decency to fire them.
They are, instead, putting them on unpaid administrative leave. This is
especially cruel because it renders them completely ineligible for
unemployment.
So, Mr. President, I ask you: Is this moral? Is this just?
Setting aside for a moment the question of whether this is
constitutional--and I assure you, unequivocally, it is not. But even
setting aside that question, is it moral? Is it proper? Is it
acceptable to do this to America's poor and middle class?
It is not.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Lankford for
letting me take 3 minutes to honor an Iowan who recently passed away, a
former Member of the House of Representatives. And I think there is
only one other United States Senator who would know who I am talking
about, and this would be Senator Schumer, who served with this former
Member of Congress from 1981 to 1995.

Remembering Neal Smith

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to former
Iowa Congressman Neal Smith, who passed away yesterday at the age of
101.
He was a true public servant. He entered public life for the right
reasons and had no interest in self-promotion. He cared about Iowa and
tried to do his best for our State, and he did.
Neal Smith was a humble but impressive man. He was a decorated bomber
pilot in World War II. After attending Drake University Law School with
his wife, Bea, and opening a practice with her, he became active in
local government.
In 1958, Neal Smith was elected to the House of Representatives,
where he served for 36 years. That is longer than any other Iowan has
served in the House of Representatives.
When I was first elected to Congress as the only Republican in the
Iowa delegation, Neal Smith forgot about politics and was a mentor to
me. I have never forgotten that. I try to follow his example. We worked
in a bipartisan way on behalf of the people in Iowa, just as it should
be.
I remember Congressman Smith as a real defender of agriculture, small

[[Page S7707]]

business, as a great Iowan, and as a good friend.
Barbara and I extend our condolences to his family. They will be in
my prayers.
I yield the floor and thank Senator Lankford.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Vaccines

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I have a real concern for our economy,
for the future of what is happening right now, and a lot of it wraps
around the vaccine mandates that are being laid down by President
Biden.
On September 9, President Biden had announced: I am losing patience
with the American people, and it is time for you to get vaccinated.
And he laid down a rule on every Federal worker, every Federal
contractor, everyone in the military, and everyone who is in a private
business with 100 employees or more. He created a new mandate.
He literally reached into union shops and changed their collective
bargaining agreement unilaterally and said: The President's going to
add a new feature in your collective bargaining agreement, and it is
going to be that you are going to have a vaccine or you are going to be
fired.
He told every police officer; he told every firefighter; he told
every doctor, every nurse; he told every member of the military, no
matter how many badges they wear or how many decorations they received:
You will be fired if you don't follow my instructions.
It didn't matter if they were frontline workers. It didn't matter if
they laid their lives on the line all of last year. It didn't matter.
He declared to them: You will be fired if you don't follow my
instructions.
He made it very, very clear: If you have already had COVID and
recovered and have natural immunity, I don't care.
If your personal doctor has told you not to--his perspective in what
is coming down is, if the CDC from Washington, DC, says it's OK, it
doesn't matter what your personal doctor says.
While he said you can have a religious accommodation, so far, as I
checked in with the military services, no one has been given a military
or religious accommodation. And across the Federal workforce, I have
yet to hear a soul getting a religious accommodation.
The words are: ``We are going to pay attention to your local
doctor.''
The reality has been totally different. And we have pushed in every
way possible against this administration, and will continue to do that
not because it is unjust, not because, quite frankly, I think the
vaccine is the wrong thing to do--I think it is the right thing to do--
but the mandate is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
Americans have a lot of different reasons to not take a vaccine.
Allow Americans to be Americans.
I have a friend of mine who, by the way, is a liberal Democrat. Yes,
I have liberal Democrat friends. He called me and said his son has had
long-term COVID. Eight months he has been in recovery from COVID. He
does not want to have the vaccine not knowing how his body will react
to that. This week, he will lose his job because the President of the
United States told him he is losing his patience.
That is not right.

Build Back Better Agenda

Mr. President, on a separate but related subject, we continue to be
able to walk toward a $2 trillion proposal coming down. We hear the
House is taking it up even in the next 24 to 48 hours. Of course, we
heard that over and over again lately.
There has been a real concern about what is happening in the economy
because of rising inflation. Oklahomans are paying $175 more a month
right now for their basic utilities, groceries, and gasoline--$175 more
a month that they are paying because of the rising inflation that has
happened this year.
That inflation, you can take it right back to the middle of March,
when a $2 trillion package was passed in this body on a straight
partisan vote that everyone on this side of the aisle was saying: Don't
do this. This will cause rising inflation.
And it was done anyway.
As simple as I can state it, it was if you add a lot of extra money
and you discourage people from working, you will get fewer products and
more buyers. It is not hard to be able to see what is going to happen
as a result of that.
Larry Summers, who used to be my Democratic colleagues' favorite
economist--he was the National Economic Council director to President
Obama--has been a very outspoken progressive economist. He wrote in
February, challenging this body not to do that $2 trillion package,
saying this:

There is the risk of inflation expectations rising sharply.
Stimulus measures of the magnitude contemplated are steps
into the unknown. For credibility, they need to be
accompanied by clear statements that the consequences will be
monitored closely.

At that same time in February, he said:

Based on the proposal that's out there, there will be an
individual that normally has $22,000 worth of normal income
in a year that will move to $30,000 in benefits for the year,
and that will cause problems.

And, boy, has it. Employment all over the country has had all kinds
of chaotic moments where employers are trying to hire employees and
they are making more on benefits than they are at work, and it has
caused all sorts of chaos across our economy.
It is interesting, several progressive economists in March of this
year, right after the bill passed, made general statements, like: ``A
relief plan is different than a stimulus.''
It doesn't matter. It is not a stimulus. It is a relief plan, so we
can spend as much as we want.
This was my favorite--one of the economists came out and said: ``The
risk of generalized overheating in the goods market appears low . . .
''
``The risk of generalized overheating in the goods market appears low
. . . '' That was the statement of the economists in March of this
year.
Yet the reality is, this year, there is a backup at the Port of Long
Beach and people can't get supplies all over the country, and exactly
what was forecast in February and March is occurring in our economy
right now.
Larry Summers again identified it this way. He made the statement:

The pandemic had punched a $20 billion hole in Americans'
monthly wage income [and] Biden [has] proposed filling it
with $100 billion.

He said:

I know the bathtub has been too empty, but one has to think
about what the capacity of the bathtub is and how much water
we're trying to flow into it.

What do I mean by that?
That $2 trillion package that was in March caused all the economic
issues of this year. It has caused all the inflation, all the
challenges in employment across our economy and across our workforce.
It is now being followed up, apparently, by another $2 trillion
proposal that is coming in the coming days. If we had giant inflation
with the last one--by the way, with the highest inflation rate since
1982. If we had that inflation from that $2 trillion package, what is
going to happen when you put another $2 trillion on top of the last $2
trillion in this economy?
The simple fact is, quoting Larry Summers, we don't know what will
happen. We are literally taking ``steps into the unknown.'' But I can
tell you, it is not hard to predict.
That is just the economic issues.
As I look at this package--it is hard to be able to look at the
package that is being proposed. I have heard quite a few folks back in
Oklahoma on the weekend say to me: What all is in this $2 trillion
package that a couple weeks ago was at $3.5 trillion? Now we hear it is
$2 trillion. What actually is in it?
And I smile at them and say: I am not sure yet. I hear bits and
pieces.
To tell you how much it is moving around, last week, when it was
released to the public, it was 2,400 pages. By this morning, it was
1,700 pages. But wait. Now this afternoon, it is 2,000 pages long. That
is in a week. It has moved from 2,400 pages to 1,700 pages, to 2,000
pages, as the proposal continues to be able to change over and over
again.
It is incredibly difficult to be able to track what all is in it, but
we can track some things that are in it.
There is a massive hole that is holding for immigration, as we have
now seen three different major proposals on immigration on how to be
able to give amnesty to the largest number of people. Several have
already been knocked down by the Parliamentarian, but it seems to come
back again just to try

[[Page S7708]]

to find a new way to be able to do amnesty for as many people that are
here illegally present in our country as possible. That seems to be a
piece of this economic proposal that is out there.
We do know in this proposal that it finds as many ways as possible to
be able to fund gaps in Hyde funding.
Now, what is that?
Using Federal dollars to be able to pay for abortions in our
country--an agreement that has been in our country since 1976--that we
have strong disagreements on a child's life.
I happen to believe that a child is a child is a child, and every
child is valuable, no matter how small they are. Many of my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle don't believe children are valuable
until they can see them. They have to be born before they are
valuable. I believe there is no difference in a child in the womb than
a child outside the womb other than time.

This bill is full of areas to go around the Hyde rules to start
allowing the funding with Federal dollars to pay for the taking of
human life.
I am disappointed how obsessed my Democrat colleagues seem to be
about finding new ways to pay for the taking of human life of children.
That has not been so, even as recently as 2 years ago.
Quite frankly, Senator Biden was outspoken about protecting the Hyde
protections. Now, President Biden and this body seem to be focused on
how many ways we can increase abortions in America.
There are a lot of energy aspects in this: the new tax on natural
gas, where just 5 or 6 years ago, we called the ``bridge fuel to the
future'' to be able to reduce carbon. Now, natural gas is receiving
punishment in this in brandnew taxes.
There is a block on production from the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. Some of my Democratic colleagues celebrate, saying: ``We are
going to cut off anything from Alaska and protect that region,'' which
is remarkable to me. We are now buying more oil from Russia than we are
from Alaska, right now--twice as much, in fact, more oil from Russia
than we are from Alaska.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an area 19.3 million square
acres--19.3 million acres. That is about half the size of my home State
of Oklahoma. That is an enormously large area. And in that area, there
are 2,000 acres that would actually be set aside for oil production. So
to put it in perspective, ANWR is half the size of my State of
Oklahoma, and the oil production area that will be needed is a third of
the size of the airport that I fly out of, the Will Rogers airport in
Oklahoma City.
If you took a third of the size of the airport, that is the size of,
actually, the oil production area that will be needed in an area half
the size of my entire State. Yet that is being blocked in this bill.
We will see the price of energy go up, but we will see a new benefit
for electric vehicles that are here. For even very, very wealthy
Americans, they will get a benefit of $12,500 on new luxury vehicles
that they want to be able to purchase, as long as they are electric.
There are direct attacks on the school choice in this bill that
actually goes after any kind of private institution or faith-based
institution. It says that you will get funding for a secular government
school for one level, but if you are in a faith-based school, it is a
different level or none at all.
If you are in a pre-K program or a childcare program--and in many
rural communities all across our State, when you come to Oklahoma, in
many rural communities, the pre-K program and the childcare program is
run from a local church. Oh, but they won't be allowed to be able to be
a provider in this. You have to be a secular provider because religious
institutions are being blocked out by this bill.
It does supersize the IRS, though. It adds $79 billion to the IRS to
increase audits--$79 billion. To give you a perspective of how big that
is, the normal IRS budget for a year is $12 billion. Yet this bill
gives an additional $79 billion to the IRS to be able to increase
audits. And if anyone has a belief those audits are only going to
connect to people that make $400,000 or more, I have a bridge to sell
you.
I have to tell you, as I read through the bill--and it does take some
time, and it is difficult to be able to get through it because it is
changing so much--I am amazed at some of the things that are in it that
have been slipped through this: $350 million are sent to unions to
provide for electronic voting systems for unions--$350 million. There
are $4.28 billion being set aside for training activities in industry
sectors and occupations for climate resilience. There are whole
sections in this bill, as I go through it, that are set aside for
specific areas: $20 million for State, local, and Tribal governments to
mitigate online services to the dot-gov internet domain. To be able to
help cities go to the dot-gov internet domain, there is $20 million
that is set aside.
And there are some set aside for even some of my colleagues who are
here today on the floor: $49 million carve-out for Native Hawaiian
climate resilience programs in the Office of Native Hawaiian Relations.
It depends on the State that you are in and the perspective that you
are in, but as I go through this bill and start identifying the
programs, I hear broad descriptions of different programs, and I hear
all these different sales of what is in it. But when you read through
the bill, when you go through the details of the bill, this is the kind
of stuff that you find.
Oh, by the way, one last piece in this ever-changing bill, just
within the last hour and a half, they have added a new section of the
bill over in the House side. It is a bill dealing with State and local
tax deductions that will help the wealthiest Americans get a bigger tax
cut. Yes, I did say that correctly. Currently, for Americans who are in
high-taxed States, they can only deduct $10,000 of their State and
local taxes, only $10,000 off their State and local taxes that they can
actually deduct from their Federal tax.
The new proposal that just came out in the last hour from the House
of Representatives increases that to $72,500 in deductions off your
State and local taxes. That will be a great tax benefit to the
wealthiest Americans--$72,500.
All that we are asking is, Show us what the real bill is. Let
Americans be able to see the real bill. Have the transparency and the
ability to be able to actually track through what this will mean day to
day, what this will mean to our economy, because we have seen what $2
trillion did to our economy this March--what is another $2 trillion
going to mean on top of all of that coming up this fall?
I think we are walking into the unknown, except this time, I think we
do know what is about to happen to our economy. We need to see this
bill and stop this bill before it damages our economy even more than we
have already been damaged.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I look forward to responding to my
colleague in the future, but I can tell you that people I know around
the country want to see their costs go down, and that is exactly what
this bill is about. It is about bringing families' costs down, from
childcare to taking care of loved ones; seniors; to bring down the cost
of prescription drugs--something that has eluded our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, despite a lot of claims that they would do
something about it.
So we look forward to debating this bill and getting it done.

American Innovation and Choice Online Act

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on behalf of a very
important piece of new legislation that is bipartisan.
I introduced this bill, the American Innovation and Choice Online
Act, in the last month with Senator Grassley, who was here with us
today and will be here shortly; as well as my colleagues Senator
Durbin, the chair of the Judiciary Committee; Senator Lindsey Graham,
the former chair of the Judiciary Committee; Richard Blumenthal, who is
here with us today; Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana; Senator Cory
Booker; Senator Josh Hawley; Senator Cynthia Lummis; and Senator Mazie
Hirono, who is here with us today; as well as Senator Mark Warner.
America has a major monopoly power problem, and nowhere is this more
obvious than with tech. It is because, in part, it is 20 percent of our
economy.

[[Page S7709]]

And while we love the new jobs, the new ideas, the new technology that
have come out, we all know that you can't just do nothing on privacy,
do nothing on competition, and that our competition laws haven't been
updated in any serious way since the invention of the internet.
I am here, again, joined with Senator Grassley. I am going to let him
go ahead of me and then turn to Senator Blumenthal and Senator Hirono,
and I will finish up because they have been very patient.
I so appreciate Senator Grassley's leadership in this area; one, to
make sure the FTC and the Department of Justice Antitrust have the
funding they need with the bill that we passed through this Chamber to
update merger fees, as well as the work that we are doing right now. It
is so important on self-preferencing.
It is this simple: Companies, just because they are dominant
platforms, shouldn't be able to put their own stuff in front of
everyone else that advertises on our platform. They shouldn't be able
to steal ideas and data and develop products off the people who are
simply trying to advertise their products on the platform and develop
knockoffs, which is exactly what we know, from some really good
reporting from the Wall Street Journal and others, has been happening.
And they shouldn't be able to, because they are dominant platforms,
tell people who advertise: Hey, if you want to get your stuff near the
top of the search engine, then you are going to have to buy a whole
bunch of things from us.
That is what reunites us on this bill, the simple concept of
competition.
I turn it over to my friend, my neighbor from the State of Iowa,
Senator Grassley.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it was a pleasure to work on this
legislation with Senator Klobuchar, so we joined forces--it happens to
turn out that there are 10 of our Senate colleagues--in a bipartisan
way to introduce this legislation that we call the American Innovation
and Choice Online Act.
This bill has garnered support from all sides of the political
spectrum and, of course, is a very commonsense measure, which is meant
to increase competition on dominant digital platforms.
Today, there are only a handful of dominant companies that control
what Americans can buy, what they hear, and what they say online.
Big Tech has powers over the economy that we haven't seen in
generations or perhaps ever, and this power grows even larger, taking
over yet more of our daily lives. With this power, Big Tech is able to
pick winners and losers on their platforms.
The goal of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act is to
ensure that Big Tech can be held accountable when they engage in a
discriminatory and anticompetitive manner.
This legislation sets clear rules that businesses on dominant
platforms must follow. This will help promote competition by targeting
harmful conduct, while ensuring that innovation and pro-consumer
conduct is protected.
I want to be clear. Big Tech platforms offer great products to their
consumers. This isn't about breaking up companies or penalizing them
for being successful. This is about ensuring that small businesses have
a fair and even playing field when utilizing a dominant online
platform.
I also want to address many of the falsehoods that have been spread
by the opponents of this legislation. Nothing in this bill will require
a company to shut down their marketplace or prevent those companies
from selling their own branded politics.
Also, nothing prevents a search company from showing maps or answer
boxes in their search results. And, also, cellular phones can be sold
with preinstalled apps. This bill simply sets clear, effective rules to
protect competition and users doing business on dominant online
platforms.
I am a strong believer in the free market. The United States is still
the greatest country in the world for starting and growing businesses.
But Big Tech is making it more difficult for small businesses to
realize success on these dominant platforms. So with this legislation,
Congress must update our laws to keep up with the growing and evolving
online ecosystem.
Big Tech has the power to determine when and what we can buy, see,
and say online. Big Tech also has the power to destroy companies, small
and large, by denying them access to consumers and even to the internet
itself.
It is time that we ensure there is effective antitrust enforcement so
the American people can take the power back from these Big Tech giants.
I want to again thank Senator Klobuchar for her work with me on this
legislation. I also want to thank all of my colleagues from both sides
of the aisle who have joined in cosponsoring this legislation.
In the House of Representatives, we have Congressmen Cicilline and
Buck, who introduced a similar bill earlier this year, which has
already been marked up and passed out of the House Judiciary Committee.
The American Innovation and Choice Online Act is a bipartisan,
bicameral bill, and I hope that we can move it forward so we end up
bringing real, positive change to the benefit of all Americans.
I yield the floor and thank Senator Klobuchar once again.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank Senator Grassley for his
leadership in working with colleagues, and I am glad he mentioned
Representatives Cicilline and Buck. They are quite the bipartisan duo.
But, then, we worked with them to make some changes to this legislation
in order to bring it to our colleagues, and we are very proud of the
work we have done. We think it is going to make a big, big difference.
With that, I will turn it over to Senator Hirono.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.

Build Back Better Agenda

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, before turning to the bipartisan bill that
brings a number of us to the floor this afternoon, we have been
listening to a number of my Republican colleagues throw stones at Build
Back Better, and I would like to simply state for the record that
Democrats are committed to lowering costs for families, such as making
childcare more affordable, and home care for seniors. Democrats are
committed to lowering taxes for people, such as the child tax credit
that, by the way, provides much needed financial support for families,
including for the families of over 200,000 children in Hawaii alone--
all by making the richest people in our country, who got the benefit of
$1.5 trillion in totally unnecessary tax cuts that the Republicans
pushed through--by making the richest people in our country pay for
these much needed programs and actually support American families.
Meanwhile, what are the Republicans doing? Nothing. Zero. Nothing for
American families. So I would like to set the record straight as to who
actually is working hard to help American families, and, believe me, it
is not the Republicans.

American Innovation and Choice Online Act

Mr. President, turning to the bill that we are talking about today,
today's big tech behemoths like to tout their claimed consumer-focused
approaches--Amazon, with its ability to deliver seemingly any product
to your doorstep within 2 days; Google, with its goal of organizing the
world's information and making it accessible to all; Apple, with its
mission of bringing the best personal computing products and support to
the end user; and Facebook, looking to give users the power to build
communities and bring the world closer together. Each claims that their
success has been the direct result of their consumer focus, that
consumers choose their products and services because they are the best
in class.
That may have been true at some point, but it is certainly not true
today. Today, consumers have no real choice. Amazon, Google, Apple, and
Facebook have become gatekeepers that too often limit, if not outright
squash, competition online. The result is unprecedented market
domination that allows these small handful of giant companies to
influence the choices and actions of literally billions of people every
day.

[[Page S7710]]

Think about how many times each of us goes on Google. Multiply that
by the billions every day. That is the kind of influence these large
companies have.
Take Amazon. Just yesterday, the Judiciary Committee heard from a
small business owner who sells his Crazy Aaron's Thinking Putty on
Amazon's dominant online marketplace. He watched as Amazon leveraged
its dominance by using the data it collects from these sales to
introduce a knockoff of his product. This is consistent with reporting
from Reuters and others that Amazon recruits small businesses to its
marketplace and then systematically uses the seller data it collects to
develop competing products and preferences those products by placing
them at the top of its search results.
Google uses similar tactics to preference its own products and
services. The company controls over 90 percent of the search market--90
percent. That might not be such a big deal if Google simply fulfilled
the promise of its cofounder, Larry Page, to ``get you out of Google
and to the right place as fast as possible,'' but that simply isn't the
case anymore. About two-thirds of searches on Google result in zero
clicks; in other words, they start on Google, and they end on Google.
That means, for example, that more and more diners looking for the best
restaurants don't get directed to Yelp, the site Google's own search
criteria identifies as best; rather, they get Google's inferior
reviews. It means that travelers looking for travel deals on the top
tourist attractions don't get sent to Expedia or Tripadvisor; they are
stuck with Google. This is becoming the case for more and more
searches.
Apple, likewise, uses its complete control over the iPhone and IOS
operating system to give its product a leg up. The company has
introduced a number of products, including Apple Music, AirTags, and
others, to compete with third-party products--except it is really no
competition at all because Apple pushes those third parties into its
payment system and then charges a tax of up to 30 percent. Sure,
consumers can still use Spotify or Tile, but they all have to pay more
to do so. In either case, Apple wins.
These companies have made clear time and again that they are not
interested in competing on a level playing field; instead, they are
determined to totally control the playing field. Unless the Federal
Government steps in, they will continue to do whatever it takes to hold
on to their market dominance, competition be damned.
This isn't good for consumers. That is why I cosponsored the American
Innovation and Choice Online Act. The bill will put an end to these
abusive and anti-competitive practices. Among other things, it will
outlaw self-preferencing by the dominant online platforms, prevent
these platforms from using a competitor's data to compete against them,
and ban the biasing of search results to benefit the company's own
products. Unlike the words of the big tech behemoths, the American
Innovation and Choice Online Act isn't an empty promise; it will
actually put consumers first by restoring competition in the online
marketplace.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield to my colleague Senator Blumenthal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Hawaii for
that very powerful explanation for why we are here today, and I thank
Senator Klobuchar for her incredibly important and impactful leadership
in this area as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Antitrust of the
Judiciary Committee. She has led informative and profoundly significant
hearings, and now she has brought to the floor, with many of us as
cosponsors, along with Senator Grassley, this major piece of
legislation, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act.
I will just begin by restating what a number of my colleagues have
said. These complaints about inflation are really totally misplaced as
applied to the Build Back Better legislation. In fact, the Build Back
Better legislation will drive down costs for Americans, make childcare
affordable and accessible, make preschool free and universal for all
Americans, and lower the cost of prescription drugs--for the first
time, a major piece of legislation to lower the cost of prescription
drugs for Americans and lower costs, as well, for energy and housing.
The ripple effects of these major steps in reducing costs for everyday
Americans will be profound and enduring.
To my colleagues who say on the floor today that this bill is
changing or complex, yes, it is complex because it is big and impactful
in lowering costs. And, yes, we have listened to Americans in making
improvements to the bill, and we will continue to listen to Americans.
Now, inflation also is tied to the bill that is before us, the
American Innovation and Choice Online Act. Competition is the lifeblood
of our economy. Competition is the way that prices are kept competitive
in benefits to consumers. Competition among businesses is the key.
Today, in our digital marketplaces, Big Tech in effect controls
access to consumers.
Go back to an earlier time in our country's history. After the Civil
War, we saw railroad tycoons use their monopolies to favor big, repeat
businesses, with costs to average Americans. They imposed
discriminatory terms on farmers and other businesses that needed access
to the rails in order to get their products to the public. The American
people wanted to do something about it. Congress did. In 1887, Congress
responded by passing the Interstate Commerce Act, which stopped
railroad monopolies from offering less favorable terms to smaller
businesses and farmers.
The analogy is not completely exact because we are dealing now with
Big Tech, but the principle is the same. Think of it as the big tech
companies controlling the means of delivery of goods and services. They
are the modern-day railroads. In our digital markets, they are dominant
gatekeepers with total control of essential online platforms. But, even
worse, they have another role as marketers of their own products on
those platforms. In other words, big tech companies own the railroads
of our digital economy, but they also compete with the economies
relying on those railroads to get their products to consumers.
Just a couple of weeks ago, in the Commerce Committee, the
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, which I chair, a whistleblower
from Facebook described, to the disgust and dismay of most Americans,
how Big Tech is pushing disruptive and toxic content on children and
how they know it and profit from it and, in fact, know from their own
research and studies what the effects are of online bullying and eating
disorders and other harms that are conveyed.
Americans asked me, as they did many of my colleagues: What are you
going to do about it?
There are solutions--on privacy, on tools for parents, on other means
of holding Big Tech accountable--and one of them is to make sure that
antitrust laws are enforced and approved so that there are competing
apps that offer safer means of reaching children and other consumers.
Now, the app market is a place where these harms to consumers and
competition are starker than anywhere else. The mobile app market has
grown into a significant part of the digital economy. In 2020 alone,
U.S. consumers spent nearly $33 billion in mobile app stores,
downloading 13.4 billion apps.
We are all dependent on our phones as our gateway to our work, our
social lives, and education. But two companies, Apple and Google,
dictate the terms of this important market. They do it exclusively. Yet
they have those dual roles: first as gatekeepers of the dominant mobile
operating systems and their app stores; and, second, as participants on
those app stores.
And as with the railroad tycoons, Apple and Google abuse that
gatekeeper status to preference themselves and their business partners,
driving up their own profits--and consumers' costs--while shutting down
competition and stifling innovation. Higher costs, less innovation
means consumers are deprived of the benefits of competition.
As with the railroads, Congress needs to ensure that new entrants and
smaller companies can compete on fair terms. Today's digital tycoons
need new rules of the road that will protect other businesses, like
laws protected small farmers and small businesses

[[Page S7711]]

against the railroad tycoons. And these rules of the road need to
address the anti-competitive discrimination that is self-preferencing
across our app economy.
I have heard from app developers who have been unable to tell their
own customers about lower prices, unable to inform their own customers
about better prices from app developers whose ideas have been co-opted
by Apple and Google under their ``kill'' or ``copy'' strategy and who
are knee-capped by the onerous 30-percent rent fees that are charged to
them. And if app developers don't like the term, there is simply
nowhere else for them to go.
So I am indebted to Senator Klobuchar and Senator Blackburn for
coauthoring another bill with me. In August, I was proud to introduce
the Open App Markets Act, which would address anti-competitive
discrimination and self-preferencing.
I believe that it is critical that we pass that bill, as well as this
one, to set fair, clear, and enforceable rules to protect competition
and consumers within the app market.
Like in the app market, there are central gatekeepers in our digital
markets with enormous power and deep conflicts of interest. Amazon
alone, for example, controls as much as 70 percent of all United States
online marketplace sales. If you are a third-party business: Amazon can
stop you from contacting your own consumers; Amazon can rank its own
products ahead of you in search; Amazon can make sure that when a
consumer asks Alexa to buy a particular product, the consumer receives
Amazon products; Amazon can use its asymmetric access to data to engage
in a copy and kill strategy. It can replicate your successful products,
make the products themselves--often more cheaply, given their massive
size--and then rank the product at the top of the search bar. In
effect, they can make it impossible for you to compete on product
quality or price.
We have a rare opportunity to improve this abuse of power. We should
seize that opportunity with bipartisan support and help protect
American consumers and businesses.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to speak up to 7 minutes; Senator Merkley, up to 15 minutes;
and Senator Durbin, up to 10 minutes prior to the scheduled votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague Senator
Grassley, the Republican lead on this bill; Senator Blumenthal, who has
done so much work in the area of competition and protection of
children; and Senator Hirono, who came to the floor today; as well as
our original cosponsors of this bill, with many more supporters out
there. And that includes Senator Durbin, the Chair of the Judiciary
Committee; Senator Lindsey Graham, the former chair; Senator Kennedy;
Senator Cory Booker; Senator Josh Hawley, Senator Lummis; and Senator
Warner.
So, as we noted, as you heard the speakers today, this is a real-
world problem. This isn't something where the tech companies can say
``just trust us, we've got this.''
I think anyone who heard the whistleblower a few weeks back in
Commerce knows that is not true; or heard the parent I heard from last
week, who told me that, as she tries to protect her kids, as she tries
to find the right filter or to get them to stop clicking on a link or
doing something that is going to expose them to bad content and bad
accounts, she said she feels like it is a faucet that is on and it is
overflowing in a sink, and she is trying to mop it up, and then the
water just keeps coming out as she goes from kid to kid to kid.
I think that pretty much sums it up for how a lot of parents feel
right now.
And the other thing that is going on when you have dominant platforms
and you don't have enough competition and you can't get competitors
that might have developed the bells and whistles that would have
protected us from misinformation and from bad information for our
kids--well, that is what happens when you have dominant platforms.
And you know what else happens to you when you go to search for
restaurant reviews, you might not be able to see what you really want
to see. Instead, you get pushed towards less reputable and less
informative reviews; or when you go to try to book a flight, you might
be missing out on a better deal because of certain dominant platforms'
own booking tool is being pushed to the top of your results. You are
basically getting ripped off. That is it, plain and simple.
It also means a dominant platform using nonpublic data--nonpublic
data, stuff it gathered from you. And, by the way, one example,
Facebook makes $51 a quarter--a quarter--off of every one of the pages
that is sitting here in front of us, off of Senator Merkley, who is
patiently waiting to speak. Fifty-one dollars a quarter is how much
they make because they have got access to all this information, and
then the ads get targeted to us. And we don't get any of that money.
Dominant platforms, using nonpublic data that they gather from small
businesses can use their platforms--and this is in the retail space; we
are talking here, like, Amazon--to build knockoff copies of their
products and then compete against the people who we are paying to
advertise on their platform.
This isn't your local grocery store chain selling store brand potato
chips to compete with a brand-name product. This is Amazon using
incredibly detailed, nonpublic information that they get from their
sellers on their platform to create copycat products and box out
competition from small innovators.
What does it look like?
In one case, an employee of Amazon's private label arm accessed a
detailed sales report with 25 columns of information on a car trunk
organizer produced by a small Brooklyn company called Fortem. In
October 2019, Amazon started selling three trunk organizers of its own.
When shown the collection data Amazon had gathered about his brand
before launching of their own product, Fortem's cofounder called it a
big surprise.
Yeah, I don't think most of us assume that trillion-dollar companies
put their troves of data to work boxing small businesses out of the
trunk organizer market. But it happened.
That is why we are here supporting the American Innovation and Choice
Online Act.
Yeah, you have got to update your competition laws when they haven't
been changed since the internet was invented.
What does this mean?
Apple won't be able to stifle competition by blocking other
companies' services from interoperating with their platform. Amazon
won't be able to misuse small businesses' data in order to copy their
products. And Google won't be able to bias their platform's search
results in favor of other products--their own products.
The result?
A fairer playing field for small and medium businesses, more options,
more flexibility, and more access to markets and fostering
entrepreneurship for the new kids on the block.
And, by the way, as Senator Grassley outlined, this bill does not
outlaw Amazon Prime. Let's go for the lie. It does not do that. That is
what they have been saying because they want to stop this in its
tracks; or free shipping; or stop Apple from freeloading useful apps
onto their iPhones. No, no, no. This is the kind of stuff they have
been saying for a while.
And that is why Senator Grassley and I spent the entire summer
working on this bill, to make sure it did none of that. That is why we
have such broad support, because this is targeted at anti-competitive
conduct.
We are really excited about this bill. The positive opinions it has
been getting--Boston Globe, Washington Post: ``Finally a promising
piece of tech antitrust legislation in Congress.''
I think there are other ones, but that is what they said in there.
So commonsense rules of the road for major digital platforms,
allowing them to continue to operate their businesses. We are glad for
these products. We like these products. We want to keep these companies
strong. But they don't need to engage in this kind of behavior. That is
why we are here today, and we are looking very forward to getting this
bill before the Judiciary Committee and passed through the Senate.

[[Page S7712]]

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Issues Facing America

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, not too long ago, we had a vote on
whether or not to start a debate on the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.
And the majority said, yes, start the debate.
Then why aren't we here in that debate?
Well, the simple answer is we have a process whereby you have to have
60--a supermajority of the Senate decide to start a debate. In other
words, there is ability to exercise a veto over whether or not a bill
is worthy for consideration on this floor, even if it is supported by
the majority of legislators.
That effort is really about destroying the ability of this Senate to
address the big issues facing America.
What bigger issue is there in a Republic than stopping billionaires
from buying elections; to stop gerrymandering from destroying equal
representation; to stop State laws that create prejudicial barriers
designed to target specific groups to keep them from voting; barriers
at the ballot box to steal the right to vote? What bigger, more
fundamental issues are there than that?
Yet we can't even start a debate. In fact, we spend a lot of time
debating whether to debate, and that is wasted time on the floor.
So, truly, that vote we took was symbolic of two things. The first is
that we are failing to address one of the biggest issues we face in
this Nation: the integrity of our election system, the corruption of
our election system.
And, second, that this Senate has become dysfunctional.
When Ben Franklin was walking out of the Constitutional Convention,
he was asked by a woman what kind of government they had created--a
Monarchy or a Republic? And he is reported to have responded: A
Republic, if you can keep it.
We have strived through 234 years to keep that Republic through war,
through depression, through social unrest, through global pandemic. We
fought for 234 years to ensure that, as expressed by Lincoln at
Gettysburg, ``government of the people, by the people, for the people,
shall not perish from the earth.'' But, as the American philosopher
John Dewey once said, ``Democracy has to be born anew every
generation.''
It is up to each generation to take up the cause and fight to protect
the foundations of our Republic. We are facing a moment of crisis once
again when this institution has veered far afield from that time when
it was declared to be the world's greatest deliberative body. Now it is
perhaps the world's most dysfunctional legislative body--unwilling and
unable to even debate, let alone vote, on the biggest issue of our
time: the defense of our Republic from the corrupting forces of power,
of billionaires buying elections, of gerrymandering, and certainly of
barriers at the ballot box.
So we have a responsibility to take up this cause, to understand its
source, and to address it, to restore the Senate as a deliberative
body.
One of the ways to evaluate our dysfunction is to look at the trend
and number of amendments considered on the U.S. Senate floor.
In the 109th session of Congress, 2005 to 2007, there were 314
amendments. In the 116th, the 2 years just passed, there were 26. So
314 amendments to 26. And most of the amendments that were allowed of
those 26 went to just 2 Members, so most Members had no opportunity to
offer amendments.
The trends in cloture filings--that is a motion to close debate--give
us some understanding of what has happened. They were extremely rare in
the past because the Senate understood it was a simple majority body.
That is the way the Founders designed it. So very rarely there had to
be an effort to actually close debate because Members went on forever
speaking, but it was rare--in 1910 through 1919, just three times; in
1930 through 1940, four times; and in 1950 to 1960, two times. But
then, in 1970 forward, things changed. From 1970 to 1975, there were 57
filings to close debate in 4 years versus 34 from 1910 forward to 1970.
This explosion--and that was just on policy legislation--led to a
reform in 1975. The rule for closing debate--the old rule of two-thirds
of Senators voting was changed to three-fifths of Senators duly chosen
or sworn. That is 60 votes regardless of how many people were on the
floor voting.
That rule change was started, if you will--generated just in those
years from 1970 to 1974 where you had these 57 cloture motions, which
is nothing compared to today--nothing--which I will expand on.
But that 1975 rule change--because instead of saying it was a
percentage of those present and voting, instead, it was a percentage of
the Senate, it means that, unwittingly, we transformed the way that you
delay things in order to exercise leverage.
We had, under the old rule, a public process where you had to take
the floor as I am right now and speak at length in order to delay while
your teammates worked to negotiate an amendment, negotiate a
compromise, make sure the public had read the bill, make sure the press
had seen the bill, make sure the Senators had vetted the bill. All
those are valuable. That delay in order to improve the process is
valuable.
Under the old rule, it was a public process. The whole Nation saw it,
and they could judge whether you were a champion or whether you were a
disaster, and you got that feedback. Under that old rule, it was not
just a public process, but it took enormous energy.
Under the new rule--a no-show. It is not necessary to show up for
debate and not necessary to show up to vote. It is a no-show, no-effort
veto that transformed this Senate. Well, the result was that it made it
so easy to obstruct that people decided to obstruct a lot. That 1975
cloture rule backfired by creating this no-show, no-effort obstruction.
Let me give you a sense of this. During the period 1960 through 1970,
there were some 25 cloture motions to close debate, but in the next
decade, over 100 in the seventies; in the eighties, over 200; in the
nineties, over 300; in the 2000s, over 400; and in 2010 through 2020,
1,029 motions to close debate. That is the disaster we are living in
right now. Instead of it just being ``Let's slow things down on final
passage,'' it became ``Let's slow things down on amendments.'' So we
went from zero cloture motions on amendments from 1920 through 1960 to
143 just in one 10-year period. It expanded to nominations. We went
from zero from 1910 through 1960 to 545 during 2010 through 2020. In
motions to proceed to legislation, we went from zero during the fifties
to 175 in 2010.
So this process of a supermajority vote to proceed expanded from
being rare to being common. It expanded from being on final passage of
legislation to everything--amendments, motions to proceed--every aspect
of the work we do here.
Now, here is the very strange thing: This use of a supermajority
would absolutely have astounded and appalled our Founders. Our Founders
were operating under the Confederation Congress at the time they were
writing the Constitution. The Confederation Congress had a requirement
for a supermajority, and that supermajority paralyzed the Confederation
Congress. They were not able to raise an army to put down Shays'
Rebellion. They were not able to raise money to pay for the
Revolutionary War veterans.
So our Founders said: Whatever you do, don't adopt a supermajority.
We have Hamilton writing:

If two thirds of the whole number of members had been
required . . . the history of every political establishment
in which this principle has prevailed, is a history of
impotence, perplexity, and disorder.

Hamilton, in another Federalist paper, wrote:

If a pertinacious minority can control . . . [the] majority
. . . tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue;
contemptible compromises of the public good [will result].

Then we have Madison, who said:

In all cases where justice or the general good might
require new laws . . . or active measures . . . the
fundamental principle of free government would be reversed
[under a supermajority]. It would be no longer the majority
that would rule: the power would be transferred to the
minority.

He is pointing out that it stands the very structure of a legislative
body on its head.
He went on to note that the result of the supermajority--remember,
they were experiencing this under the Confederation Congress--is to
produce the

[[Page S7713]]

following: that the ``minority might take advantage of it to screen
themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in
particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.''
Here, are our Founders saying: We experienced the supermajority.
Don't ever do it.
They wrote the Constitution so a supermajority was reserved only for
special circumstances, like evicting Members, like considering a
treaty, like overruling a Presidential veto.
So why are we here today doing exactly what the Founders said not to
do and experiencing exactly the results that they had experienced under
the Confederation Congress?
My friends, we have a responsibility to restore the function of this
body. We need to streamline the nomination process. Think about how a
nomination works. You vote to go to executive session. You have a
motion to proceed to a nomination. You vote on proceeding. You hold a
debate, you hold a vote, and then you proceed it, and then you hold a
debate, and then you vote, and then you have 2 hours of postdebate, and
then finally a vote. That is a crazy system to be able to consider a
nomination. It takes up huge amounts of our time when a simple vote to
proceed, limited debate, simple vote to proceed to on the floor, simple
time to consider it, and a vote on whether or not you are going to
allow the person to fill the position the person has been nominated
for--this sort of streamlining would save us all a tremendous amount of
time that could be dedicated to actual debate and actual amendments.
Then there is this use of a supermajority on motions to proceed to
legislation, using a blockade to prevent debate, not to facilitate
debate, as is sometimes argued for the supermajority--that it can slow
things down, facilitate debate, make sure bills are read, make sure
there is a chance of negotiation--no, to prevent debate. We shouldn't
spend time debating whether to debate. Let's just have a set hour to
consider whether to move to a bill, and then we either move to it or we
don't.
How about amendments? I noted the collapse of the ability of Senators
to amend. Senators in the minority want to do amendments. Senators in
the majority want to do amendments. We all have ideas and thoughts on
how to change things and improve things. We want to make our case, but
we don't get to do it here anymore.
Don't we have a bipartisan, vested interest in restoring amendments
to the deliberations of the Senate? You know, I was pondering this
question because we seem to be locked in a cycle where, given partisan
differences in the Nation--partisan differences that are increased by
social media and increased by cable television--we just can't seem to
come together to be able to make this place work as it is supposed to,
as it is our responsibility to do. But we have gotten to the point
where we are utterly--utterly--damaging the United States of America.
You know, the President of China, President Xi, is saying: Hey, there
is a world competition between democratic republics and an
authoritarian world. Look what we have done in China. We went from
bicycles, and then we had cars and traffic jams, and now we have bullet
trains, 16,000-mile bullet trains. Look what we are accomplishing. Look
how many millions are lifted out of poverty. Look how paralyzed the
United States is.
Why is the United States paralyzed? Because this Chamber cannot
discuss a simple debate and vote like every State legislature across
this country does.
Colleagues, let's come together. Let's restore debate. Let's restore
amendments. Let's save and savor and improve the ability of the
minority to participate in the process, but let's also remember that
balance of the Senate involves getting to a final decision, a simple
majority vote as the Founders had intended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

Nomination of Jennifer Sung

Mr. DURBIN. The Senate will soon be voting on a highly qualified
nominee to the Ninth Circuit, Jennifer Sung.
She is a distinguished jurist who will bring an underrepresented
perspective to the bench. She is a graduate of Oberlin and Yale Law
School. She clerked for Judge Betty Binns Fletcher on the Ninth
Circuit. She received a prestigious Skadden Fellowship and worked on
economic legal issues at the Brennan Center. She spent more than a
decade representing American workers, often minorities from low-income
and underserved communities, in labor disputes.
In 2017, Oregon Governor Kate Brown appointed her to serve on the
Oregon Employment Relations Board, known as the ERB. It is a three-
member, quasi-judicial agency charged with resolving labor disputes. As
a member of that board, she sits on a three-member panel that reviews
evidentiary records, independently evaluates the law, and works in a
collaborative manner to reach consensus on opinions and issues. If that
sounds like the same process she would follow in Federal court, it is.
In her nearly 5 years on that board, she has presided over more than
200 matters, and only 3 of the 200 have ever been overturned.
She has exhibited the kinds of qualities we expect of a circuit court
nominee. She has been criticized for one thing that she did in her
life, and some of her critics won't forget it. She signed a letter that
was opposed to Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. She
has testified under oath before our committee that some statements in
that letter were, in fact, overheated. More importantly, she testified
that she respects the authority of all members of the Supreme Court and
recognizes the importance of faithfully following law and precedent.
The best evidence of how she will serve on the circuit is her
impressive record in the State of Oregon. When you look at that record,
you see that she has the support not only of many colleagues but also
of employees, unions, and employers. Here is what they said:
``impressive intelligence, diligent preparation, respectful courtroom
demeanor, and judicial impartiality.'' How about that for a checklist
for a judgeship?
When I hear some of my colleagues express outrage over one letter she
signed in her life, I wonder if they remember some of the nominees that
they brought before us in the last 4 years. It appears there is a
double standard.
Ms. Sung has the strong support of Senators Merkley and Wyden, and
the American Bar Association rated her as ``well qualified.'' As the
first Asian-American woman--she will be the first to hold the Oregon
seat in the Ninth Circuit, bringing diversity to that bench. Her
professional accomplishments and her commitment to fairness and
impartiality are profound and impressive.
I support her, and I hope my colleagues will as well.
I yield the floor.

____________________