[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 201 (Thursday, November 18, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8407-S8430]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022--Motion to 
                            Proceed--Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 4350, 
which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 144, H.R. 4350, a bill to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2022 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense, for military 
     construction, and for defense activities of the Department of 
     Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such 
     fiscal year, and for other purposes.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                   National Defense Authorization Act

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on NDAA, last night, the Senate began 
the process to debate, amend, and ultimately pass our annual Defense 
spending bill. With Republican cooperation, we can adopt the motion to 
proceed and begin voting on amendments early today.
  Let me say it again. With Republican cooperation, we can adopt the 
motion to proceed and begin voting on amendments today. We should work 
together and complete this important bill before the Thanksgiving 
holiday.
  Last night's vote was overwhelmingly bipartisan, so there is no 
reason we can't come to an agreement very soon to begin debating 
amendments.
  And there is already one important amendment that I want to mention: 
repealing the 2002 Iraq AUMF. This bipartisan measure was reported out 
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year, and I said 
months ago that the Senate should hold a vote on it. The NDAA is a 
logical place to do so.
  The Iraq war has been over for over a decade. An authorization passed 
in 2002 is no longer necessary for keeping Americans safe in 2021. It 
has been nearly 10 years since this particular authorization has been 
cited as a primary justification for a military operation, and there is 
a real danger to letting these legal authorities persist indefinitely. 
Repealing this AUMF will in no way hinder our national defense, nor 
will it impact our relationship with the people of Iraq.
  I want to thank Chairman Menendez, Senator Kaine, Senator Young, and 
every Republican and Democratic cosponsor of the bill for working to 
bring this issue to the floor. And in the coming days, I hope we can 
come to an agreement on other commonsense amendments to strengthen the 
Defense bill so we can get it passed through the Senate as soon as 
possible.


                        Build Back Better Agenda

  Madam President, on Build Back Better, now that President Biden has 
enacted his once-in-a-generation infrastructure bill, Democrats are 
taking the next steps toward passing the rest of his Build Back Better 
plan.

[[Page S8408]]

  The last year and a half have been unlike any in modern U.S. history. 
We have had a once-in-a-century pandemic, followed by the worst 
economic crisis since the Great Depression.
  We have come a long way this year as we have lifted our country out 
of the depths of these crises, but the challenges, of course, aren't 
over.
  Americans right now want us to lower costs for things like 
healthcare, prescription drugs, childcare. We have a responsibility to 
pass legislation that will cut costs and improve American lives. That 
is why we need to keep working on passing Build Back Better. We know 
that passing this critical legislation will lower costs for some of the 
most basic and essential things in everyday life. And as economists 
from leading rating agencies said yesterday, Build Back Better will not 
add to the inflationary pressures in the U.S. economy.
  The childcare provision could alone save families thousands of 
dollars each year. Families, on average, spend $10,000 annually on 
childcare for each child under 4. A generation ago, this was unheard 
of. Build Back Better will dramatically lower costs for millions of 
families by providing the largest investment in childcare in American 
history.
  The same goes for prescription drugs. If you are one of the roughly 
10 million Americans who relies on insulin to manage your diabetes, 
chances are you have been spending more and more as the cost of this 
once-affordable drug has skyrocketed. It is truly one of the perplexing 
and frustrating trends of the past two decades.
  Well, Build Back Better will make it so Americans with diabetes don't 
pay more than $35 per month on insulin by enabling Medicare to directly 
negotiate prices in Part B and Part D--again, lowering costs, improving 
the lives of millions of families.
  Examples go on and on of how people will have more money in their 
pocket given their expenses.
  Build Back Better cuts taxes for parents raising kids. It makes pre-K 
universal for the first time ever. It will provide help for small 
businesses to invest within the United States and hire American 
workers.
  And, ultimately, it is the best thing we can do to recapture that 
sunny American optimism that has been the key to our country's success. 
Creating jobs, lowering costs, fighting inflation, keeping more money 
in people's pockets--these are things Americans want and what Americans 
need, and it is what BBB does.
  We are going to keep working on this important legislation until we 
get it done.


                       Nomination of Dilawar Syed

  Madam President, now, on a much sadder note, Mr. Syed.
  The Republican fixation on blocking qualified, uncontroversial, and 
essential nominees to fill roles in the Biden administration has hit a 
new and shameful low.
  Yesterday, every single Republican on the Small Business Committee 
boycotted a hearing that would have held a vote on Dilawar Syed's 
nomination for the No. 2 spot at the Small Business Administration.
  If confirmed, Mr. Syed would be the highest ranking Muslim American 
in government. This is the fifth time--the fifth time--that Republicans 
have failed to show up to a committee hearing for Mr. Syed.
  To date--to date--we have yet heard a single legitimate reason for 
their opposition. At one point, some of my colleagues seemed to 
question Mr. Syed's allegiance because of his affiliation with a Muslim 
voter education group. That is repugnant, and after those objections 
provoked fierce criticism, Republicans came up with entirely new 
fabrications for their resistance.
  But at no point have Republicans explained why Mr. Syed is not 
qualified for the job. Frankly, they can't because Mr. Syed is the 
definition of a qualified candidate. His nomination has been praised by 
hundreds of business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
hardly a liberal crowd.
  It is shameful; it is unacceptable; it is ridiculous for Republicans 
to keep stalling on Mr. Syed's nomination. He is eminently qualified to 
serve in the SBA.
  Why are Senate Republicans opposing Mr. Syed's nomination? And let me 
ask this again because the question resonates. Why are Senate 
Republicans opposing Mr. Syed's nomination?
  I ask my Republican colleagues to drop their resistance and allow 
this excellent and straightforward nominee to receive confirmation.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The minority leader is recognized.


                   National Defense Authorization Act

  Mr. McCONNELL. Well, at long last the Senate will officially turn to 
the NDAA. Every day, world events remind us that America faces serious 
rolling threats. In too many cases President Biden's decisions have 
actually made things worse, so our annual opportunity for the Senate to 
have its say is as important this year as it has ever been.
  Over in Russia, Putin is preparing to escalate military hostilities 
along the border with Ukraine, and he is using Europe's reliance on 
natural gas to bully our friends. But President Biden actually removed 
obstacles to Putin's brandnew pipeline that will further extend his 
leverage and further enrich his cronies.
  So I hope the Senate will consider an NDAA amendment to sanction this 
project and to provide additional lethal support to Ukraine. These 
initiatives have previously won bipartisan support, so I would hope 
Democrats would join Republicans in pushing back on Moscow.
  China is flaunting major military innovations, like hypersonic 
weapons systems, stepping up airspace intrusions over Taiwan, and 
blaming America for their bad behavior. But while President Biden and 
our colleagues like to talk a good game about China, they have yet to 
really walk the walk. President Biden's budget request for our military 
and defense does not even keep pace with President Biden's inflation.
  In addition, while Russia openly threatens its neighbors and China 
builds up its conventional and nuclear forces, there are reports that 
Democrats are considering unprecedented new constraints on America's 
own nuclear options through a ``no first use'' or ``sole purpose'' 
policy.
  Our allies have strong concerns about this. I hope the Senate will 
use the NDAA process to demonstrate bipartisan support for finally 
modernizing our nuclear triad. That is the bedrock of deterrence and 
our strongest defense against these serious threats.
  So, what about terrorism?
  Following President Biden's Afghanistan disaster, we are facing new 
and growing threats there as well. The new Taliban government has made 
cabinet ministers out of terrorists whom the Obama-Biden administration 
let out of Guantanamo Bay. But the Biden-Harris administration still 
naively acted like these characters care one bit about international 
norms.
  That is why Republicans have an amendment to ensure that none of the 
funding for Afghanistan aid can flow to the Taliban. It is an 
indictment of President Biden's policy that such an amendment is even 
necessary, but yet that is where we are.
  In the Middle East, Iranian-backed terrorists are rampaging from 
Yemen to Iraq to Syria. They are emboldened as our deterrence has 
eroded. Given the multiple attacks on U.S. forces and facilities, we 
are fortunate more Americans haven't been killed. It may only be a 
matter of time before we see U.S. casualties at the hands of Iranian-
backed terrorists.
  However, in the wake of these growing threats, Democrats want to use 
the NDAA--a bill that should strengthen our national defense--as an 
occasion to weaken the authorities that support our military's presence 
and operational flexibility by repealing the 2002 AUMF. I expect a 
robust debate about that.
  I am glad we will finally be able to have these debates and these 
votes. America needs a course correction, and the Senate needs to 
supply it.


                              The Economy

  Madam President, on an entirely different matter, American families 
are

[[Page S8409]]

dealing with painful inflation every single day. They have been 
fighting this daily battle for months now.
  A few months ago, a grandfather raising four grandkids in Missouri 
told reporters he had to cancel summer camp for his 8-year-old and his 
6-year-old in order to keep affording diapers for their twin younger 
brothers.
  One Maryland woman told the local news she had gone to the grocery 
store to buy meat for her family, but was turned away by the pricetag 
and had to leave with a $2 loaf of bread instead.
  One man in Massachusetts, who cares for his elderly mother, told 
reporters that his 94-year-old mom needs the house kept warm, so they 
are getting absolutely crushed--crushed--by runaway heating costs. 
Here's what he had to say about it:

       Before, you'd go to the store, and if you had a $100, you 
     could buy four bags of groceries and be happy. Now you are 
     lucky to get a bag. Milk, orange juice, eggs. Plus the oil 
     for the house, the water bills. It's just crazy. It's so much 
     money. How is someone supposed to survive?

  This persistent and painful inflation has been directly fueled by the 
reckless spending spree that Democrats rammed through in March. Even if 
Washington Democrats didn't inflict more new damage, economists still 
say ``we're going to see inflation get worse before it gets better.''
  The Democratic leader said on March 12: ``I do not think the dangers 
of inflation, at least in the near-term, are very real.''
  He was catastrophically wrong. And these same people want yet another 
multitrillion-dollar bite at the apple.
  Look, American families know the spending part of Democrats' reckless 
tax-and-spending spree would spell disaster. Sixty-seven percent just 
told a survey that Washington should cut back on printing and spending 
because of inflation and rising costs.
  And then there is the taxing part of their reckless taxing-and-
spending spree. The bill that Democrats are writing behind closed doors 
would hike taxes on the American people by an estimated $1.5 trillion--
a trillion and a half dollars in tax increases.
  Democrats have already turned a strong economy into a shaky economy. 
Now they want to add the biggest tax hikes in a generation. A huge 
chunk of that is hundreds of billions of dollars for tax hikes on 
American industries and employers, because the Biden administration has 
become enamored with a global scheme where countries around the world 
supposedly all agree to hike their tax rates together.
  This is an awful idea. Remember, in 2019, Republican policies had set 
up the best economy for working Americans in a generation. This is in 
large part because we just cut taxes substantially. We made America a 
more attractive place to do business.
  So President Biden wants to do just the opposite of that: thrust 
America into some kind of global noncompete agreement. We are supposed 
to promise Europe and Asia that we won't make America an especially 
attractive place to bring jobs and prosperity.
  Let me say that again. We are in the process of promising Europe and 
Asia that we won't make America an especially attractive place to bring 
jobs and prosperity.
  Look, it gets worse. President Biden and Secretary Yellen want 
America to leap over the cliff first, tax the heck out of American 
industries while we just wait and see if our competitors actually 
follow suit.
  Well, you better believe China would be just thrilled to see the 
Democrats' bill drain hundreds of billions of dollars out of our own 
private sector as a symbolic gesture to the rest of the world.
  Democrats' tax policies are just like their energy policies. They 
won't build back better. They will build back Beijing. They won't build 
back better. They will build back Beijing.
  This is just one part of a $1.5 trillion job-killing tax hike. There 
are all kinds of tax increases that would hit major employers, Main 
Street small businesses, and American families. Nonpartisan experts 
have confirmed the Democrats' bill would completely break the 
President's promise not to raise ``a single penny more,'' he said, in 
taxes on middle-class households.
  They even want to send tens of billions in extra funding to the IRS 
so they can hire an army of new agents to snoop and audit their way 
across the country. But less than 3 percent of the huge IRS windfall 
would fund better customer service for taxpayers.
  Finally, in the midst of all these tax hikes, Democrats from New 
York, New Jersey, and California have managed to include--listen to 
this--a massive tax cut for wealthy people who choose to reside in 
high-tax blue States. This bonanza for blue State millionaires and 
billionaires would cost almost $300 billion on its own.
  Even the Washington Post could only marvel at the audacity of this. 
Here's their headline: ``The second-biggest program in the Democrats' 
spending plan gives billions to the rich.'' That is the Washington 
Post's assessment of it.
  In fact, even though Democrats want to hike taxes by $1.5 trillion, 
their bill still manages to give a net tax cut to 89 percent of people 
making between $500,000 and $1 million, and 69 percent of households 
making over $1 million.
  This bears repeating. Even though Democrats want to hike taxes by 
$1.5 trillion, their bill still manages to give a net tax cut to 89 
percent of people making between $500,000 and $1 million, and 69 
percent of households making over $1 million.
  All of this is a huge blow to American competitiveness: job-killing 
tax hikes. But Democrats make sure to look out for the ultrawealthy out 
on the coasts. A supermajority of them get tax cuts. I am almost 
impressed our colleagues have found a way to be this out of touch.

  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Border Security

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the Biden border crisis continues to 
rage. Last month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 
164,303 individuals attempting to illegally cross our southern border. 
That is more than twice the number of encounters Customs and Border 
Protection had the previous October and the highest October number ever 
recorded by Customs and Border Protection. In all, more than 1.7 
million migrants were apprehended attempting to cross our southern 
border in fiscal year 2021--the highest number ever.
  We are in the midst of a very serious crisis, and the response from 
Democrats and the administration? Well, mostly crickets. Democrats seem 
to hope that ignoring the border situation will make it go away or at 
least ensure that no one pays attention. I am pretty sure the President 
and his administration spent more time earlier this year fighting 
against the use of the word ``crisis'' to describe the situation at the 
border than they did actually thinking about how they might deal with 
the influx. Apparently, the administration is still--still--trying to 
avoid the ``crisis'' label judging by a recent hearing wherein the 
President's nominee to head Customs and Border Protection seemed to 
carefully avoid referring to the situation at the border as a 
``crisis.''
  If the highest number of border encounters ever recorded isn't a 
crisis, I am not sure what is. The situation at our southern border is 
out of control. It is a security crisis, it is a manpower and 
enforcement crisis, and it is a humanitarian crisis--although, again, 
you would never guess it from the Democrats' behavior.
  Despite the fact that this crisis has been raging for the best part 
of a year now, Democrats and the administration have taken essentially 
no meaningful action to address the situation, and that is not the 
worst of it. The Democrats' policies are actually making the situation 
worse.
  Among other things, the President has significantly limited the 
ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border 
Protection to enforce immigration laws, and arrests in the interior of 
the country dropped steeply under this administration. The Washington 
Post recently reported:

       Immigration arrests in the interior of the United States 
     fell in fiscal 2021 to the lowest level in more than a 
     decade.


[[Page S8410]]


  The practical effect of the President's immigration policies has been 
to encourage new waves of illegal immigration. It is hardly surprising. 
If you think that your chances of staying in the United States are 
good, even if you are here illegally, you are likely much more inclined 
to undertake the journey in the first place.
  The administration's actions--or lack thereof--have been compounded 
by the actions of Democrats in Congress who have been doing their best 
to guarantee widespread amnesty. Democrats have repeatedly attempted to 
include some form of amnesty in their tax-and-spending spree. While 
they have been partially foiled by the rulings of the Senate 
Parliamentarian, the latest version of their bill still contains 
provisions to grant de facto amnesty to many illegal immigrants.
  Their spending spree also deliberately lacks restrictions on Federal 
funding going to individuals in the country illegally, which means that 
illegal immigrants could end up receiving the $3,000-per-year child 
allowance, housing vouchers, and more. One analysis suggests that 
illegal immigrants could collect $10.5 billion in child allowance 
payments next year.
  I haven't even mentioned reports that the Biden administration has 
apparently been contemplating settling lawsuits brought by individuals, 
who came here illegally, with payments of up to $450,000 per person--
$450,000. That is right. That is more than four times as much as the 
government gives to the families of soldiers killed in action and nine 
times--nine times--as much as the government gives to an individual 
wrongly imprisoned for 1 year. The administration has suggested that 
payments will not actually be that high, but even a settlement half 
that size would dwarf the payments that we give to the families of 
fallen soldiers.
  Immigrants have helped make this country what it is today, and I am a 
strong supporter of legal immigration, including temporary worker 
visas, like H-2B visas, which help South Dakota employers and many 
others address hiring challenges, but, again, immigration has to be 
legal. Encouraging illegal immigration, as the Democrats are doing, 
presents a serious security risk because it makes it easier for 
everyone from terrorists to drug traffickers to enter the country 
unidentified, to say nothing of drugs like fentanyl and other illegal 
items.
  Encouraging illegal immigration through lax immigration enforcement 
and amnesty also undermines respect for the rule of law. The area of 
immigration should not be an exception to the principle that the law 
has to be followed and respected. Yet that is basically what Democrats' 
policies are saying--that the law doesn't matter when it comes to 
immigration.
  Finally, we need to get away from any idea that there is anything 
compassionate about policies that encourage individuals to come here 
illegally. Attempting to enter the country illegally is fraught with 
danger, from natural perils like weather, disease, and exposure, to 
exploitation by smugglers and traffickers. Amnesty and lax enforcement 
policies encourage thousands more individuals and families to expose 
themselves to the dangers of an illegal border crossing.
  President Biden and Democrats could help stem this crisis right now 
by making it clear that immigration law will be enforced and that the 
only acceptable way to enter the United States is to come here legally. 
Unfortunately, it seems much more likely that the President will 
continue to ignore this crisis and deemphasize immigration enforcement 
while Democrats in Congress will continue to push for amnesty. It is a 
serious failure of responsibility on the President's part and one that 
will continue to have serious and sometimes deadly consequences.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         The Gettysburg Address

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it was 158 years ago tomorrow that Abraham 
Lincoln delivered what I believe was the greatest speech ever uttered 
by an American. He had been asked to say ``a few words'' at the 
dedication at the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, PA.
  Four months had passed since the great armies of the North and South 
had clashed on that hallowed ground. They had fought for 3 days in the 
searing July heat. When the slaughter finally ended, the battlefield 
lay covered with the bodies of 50,000 dead and wounded soldiers and 
officers. It was the bloodiest battle in the hellish Civil War.
  What good could come from butchery and sorrow? What great purpose had 
been worth such staggering loss? Those were the questions which Abraham 
Lincoln pondered on his train ride to answer in Gettysburg.
  He spoke for less than 3 minutes--just 272 words. In those 3 minutes, 
he redefined the war as not a battle for territory or property, but for 
human dignity and human equality.
  He gave us a profound, simple, new definition of democracy: 
``Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' He 
said the fallen soldiers had done all they could do. They had given 
their ``last full measure of devotion'' to ensure democracy did not 
perish from this Earth.
  Now, Lincoln said, it was left to us, the living, to ``advance their 
unfinished work''--in his words, to salvage from all of that death a 
new birth of freedom.
  He said that our Civil War was testing ``whether a nation, conceived 
in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created 
equal . . . can long endure.''
  Can our democracy endure? It is a question that Lincoln pondered not 
just at Gettysburg but throughout his life.
  Twenty-five years before Gettysburg, he had considered that question 
in a speech at the Young Men's Lyceum in Springfield, IL. He was a 
young lawyer and a newly elected State legislator, just 29 years old.
  It was a challenging time in America, as it is today. Anxiety was 
high following a stock market panic the previous year. There was 
growing violence in America. Abolitionists were being killed by pro-
slavery defenders. Blacks and others were being lynched with alarming 
frequency in the South. Lincoln feared that what he called ``the 
justice of the mob'' might replace the rule of law. Sound familiar?
  In a time of such anxiety, he questioned whether people might elect a 
despot who would use his power to tear down the institutions of our 
democracy, rather than preserve them.
  In his most famous passage, he warned that if American democracy were 
ever to perish, ``it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from 
abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and 
finisher.''
  I heard those words quoted by a thoughtful Member of the House of 
Representatives on the night of January 6, 2021, after the mob that 
attacked this Capitol had gone and Congress had returned to complete 
our duty to certify the electoral ballots and declare Joe Biden the 
President of the United States.
  The weapons and military programs that we will debate in the coming 
days are important. They are essential to protect America. But weapons 
alone cannot save us if we don't understand what we are fighting to 
defend. There is only one sure way to preserve American democracy, 
Lincoln told us. We must know our history. We should study the 
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, he said, as if they 
were a Bible, so that we revere the principles upon which our democracy 
is built.
  Our democracy can't survive if we reject the great proposition for 
which so many died at Gettysburg: that all people are created equal. 
Our democracy cannot survive if we abide by the rule of law only when 
it suits us. And it will not endure if we see each other as enemies 
rather than as friends and citizens of one Nation that we all love.
  We have seen a demonstration of that particular issue this week in 
the House of Representatives.
  In his book, ``Lincoln at Gettysburg,'' Garry Wills wrote that ``Up 
to the Civil War, the United States was referred to as a plural noun. 
`The United States are a free country.' After

[[Page S8411]]

Gettysburg, it became singular, `The United States is a free 
country.'''
  As it says above your head, Mr. President, ``e pluribus unum.''
  As we look forward to celebrating our national holiday of 
Thanksgiving, perhaps we could try a little harder to hear the ``mystic 
chords of memory''--what a phrase--that unite us.
  I think about that Gettysburg Address, and I was asked to give a 
speech about the Gettysburg Address at Gettysburg many years ago. I 
tried to set out whatever I had to say in 272 words. I think I did a 
fair job, but I would give myself a passing grade, at best. But it was 
a complete shock to my audience when I stopped at 272 words, and 
Lincoln said that a speech doesn't have to be eternal to be immortal.

  In our lives as public servants, we are called on to speak very 
often. And I am reminded, time and again, the impact that Lincoln had 
with so few words, to capture the moment, to give people hope, and to 
craft phrases which still endure to this day as some of the most 
masterful uses of the English language one can imagine.
  Tomorrow, I hope we can take a moment to recall our childhood 
education, when we were taught the Gettysburg Address and perhaps 
recite what we can of it. And I hope we will remember, even in these 
dark times, that we have faced harder times than this and we were 
delivered and this Nation endured.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   National Defense Authorization Act

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the fiscal year 2022 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  Over the coming days, the Senate will consider this bill, which the 
Armed Services Committee passed by a broad bipartisan margin of 23 to 3 
in July.
  I look forward to debating and improving this bill, as we all work 
toward ensuring our military has the right tools and capabilities to 
combat threats around the globe and keep Americans safe.
  First, I would like to acknowledge Ranking Member Inhofe, whose 
leadership on this committee and this body has been invaluable. His 
commitment to our men and women in uniform is unwavering, and he was 
instrumental in helping to produce this bipartisan legislation.
  As we debate the NDAA, we must keep in mind that the United States is 
engaged in a strategic competition with China and Russia. These near-
peer rivals do not accept U.S. global leadership or the international 
norms that have helped keep the peace for the better part of a century.
  This strategic competition is likely to intensify due to shifts in 
the military balance of power and diverging views of governance. And it 
is unfolding amidst climate change and the emergence of highly 
disruptive technologies.
  The interconnected nature of these threats will drive how we 
transform our tools of national power to respond. The passage of the 
FY2022 NDAA will be a critical step in meeting the complex challenges 
before us.
  Turning to the specifics of this year's Defense bill, the NDAA 
authorizes $740 billion for the Department of Defense and $27 billion 
for national security programs within the Department of Energy.
  For the first time in years, this legislation, like the President's 
budget request, does not include a separate overseas contingency fund, 
or OCO, request. Any war-related costs are included in the base budget.
  This bill contains a number of important provisions that I would like 
to highlight.
  To begin, we have a duty to ensure that the United States can 
outcompete, deter, and prevail against near-peer rivals. The NDAA 
supports the Department of Defense in this endeavor by providing the 
resources needed by the combatant commanders to carry out the national 
defense strategy, or NDS.
  Every 4 years, the Department reports the NDS to outline the national 
security objectives of the administration. The 2018 NDS provided a 
framework, and the DOD will release a new strategy in the coming 
months.
  In this regard, this bill creates a commission on the national 
defense strategy for the forthcoming NDS in order to boost our military 
advantage. Last year, the Armed Service Committee created the Pacific 
Deterrence Initiative--or PDI--to better align DOD resources in support 
of military-to-military partnerships to address the challenges posed by 
China.
  This year's bill extends and modifies the PDI and reiterates the 
committee's intent to improve our force posture in the Indo-Pacific, to 
increase readiness and presence, and to build the capabilities of our 
partners and allies to counter these threats.
  Future investments under PDI should focus on military and nonmilitary 
infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific region. This will assist in 
distributed military operations, and it will be more effective in 
countering predatory Chinese infrastructure development practices.
  The bill also requires the Secretary of Defense to provide recurring 
briefings on efforts to deter Chinese aggression and military coercion. 
It compels a briefing on the advisability and feasibility of increasing 
United States defense cooperation with Taiwan. It is important we help 
Taiwan improve its overall readiness and acquire asymmetric 
capabilities most likely to make the Chinese Government question their 
ability to take the island by force.
  I want to emphasize, however, that our Nation's ability to deter 
China cannot be based on military might alone. We must strengthen our 
network of allies and partners, which will be essential to any strategy 
for the Indo-Pacific region. We must also ensure that, as we shift our 
focus to the Indo-Pacific, we do not lose sight of priorities in other 
areas, like Europe.
  This year's bill authorizes the continuation of the European 
Deterrence Initiative--or the EDI--recognizing the continued need to 
invest in support for our European allies and partners as we work 
toward the shared goal of deterring Russian aggression, addressing 
strategic competition, and mitigating shared security concerns, the 
most recent one being the amassing of Russian troops on the border of 
Ukraine.
  Turning to personnel, the key factor that makes the United States the 
greatest military power in the world is its people. We need to ensure 
that our uniformed personnel know every day how much we appreciate what 
they do and that we have their backs.
  Congress has done a good job in providing benefits to the military 
and their families, and this year's Defense bill continues to do that. 
But our military is showing the strain of two decades of continuous 
deployments, and I am concerned that there has been a dangerous erosion 
of trust within the chain of command; and issues such as racism, 
extremism, sexual harassment, and sexual assault have been allowed to 
fester and create friction and division.
  The Department of Defense is addressing those issues, but Congress 
must provide guidance and resources. To this end, the bill strengthens 
the All-Volunteer Force and improves the quality of life of the men and 
women of the total force: the Active Duty, the National Guard, and the 
Reserves; their families; and, importantly, the Department of Defense 
civilian employees, who contribute significantly to the effectiveness 
of our operations.
  It reinforces the principles of a strong, diverse, inclusive force 
and that force cohesion requires a command climate that does not 
tolerate extremism or sexual assault misconduct or racism; and that 
quality healthcare is a fundamental necessity for servicemembers and 
their families.
  Importantly, this NDAA includes the funding necessary to support a 
2.7 percent pay raise for both military servicemembers and the DOD 
civilian workforce. We have also included a provision that would amend 
the Military Selective Service Act to require the registration of women 
for Selective Service. I am proud of this position, which passed the 
Armed Services Committee on a broad bipartisan basis.
  Society, the military, and the nature of warfare itself have evolved 
significantly since the 1948 Military Selective Service Act passed. 
Back then, women were denied the opportunity to serve in

[[Page S8412]]

combat roles and key leadership positions, and entire technologies and 
platforms didn't even exist.
  Today, all military occupations, including combat roles, are open to 
women, and military success depends heavily on servicemembers with 
advanced education and technical skills in STEM, cyber, medicine, 
languages, and more.
  To be clear, I am hopeful that we will never have to draft again. If 
we do, however, it will be under circumstances so dire and existential 
that to voluntarily choose to enter the fight with anything less than 
our very best would be supremely foolish and potentially fatal. If we 
are going to have a Selective Service System, women must be a part of 
it. Basic equality and military readiness demand parity between the 
sexes to protect our country and uphold our values. In the meantime, it 
is time to end outdated sex discrimination and remove it from official 
policy and Federal law.
  The bill also creates a new category of bereavement leave for 
military personnel that would permit servicemembers to take up to 2 
weeks of leave in connection with the death of a spouse or a child. 
Similarly, in an effort to provide greater care and support to our 
military men and women, it increases parental leave to 12 weeks for all 
servicemembers for the birth, adoption, or foster care placement of a 
child. It establishes a basic needs allowance to ensure that all 
servicemembers can meet the basic needs of their families, and it 
requires parity and special and incentive pays for members of the 
Reserve and the active components.
  In addition, I am proud that this bill makes historic changes to the 
military justice system to combat and discourage sexual assault and 
related misconduct within the military. Sexual assault is an 
unconscionable crime and a pervasive problem in the U.S. military and 
American society writ large.
  When it comes to the military, one of the basic ethics is that one 
must protect your comrades and your subordinates; one cannot exploit 
them. Sexual assault and sexual harassment is an example of 
unconscionable exploitation, and it must be eliminated. We must take 
comprehensive action to halt sexual misconduct, hold offenders 
accountable, and support survivors. While the military has tried to 
stop sexual assault in the ranks, it simply hasn't been enough.
  I commend President Biden, the Department of Defense, and the 
Independent Review Commission for their work on proposals, which we 
have considered during our markup and which are reflected in the bill. 
We will continue to work with the administration and the House to move 
toward enacting this momentous change.
  Turning now to the areas of air, land, and sea power, with respect to 
our services, we have taken steps to improve their capabilities, their 
readiness, and their ability to fight and win.
  This bill makes significant efforts to improve the readiness of the 
Navy and Marine Corps aircraft, ships, and weapons systems. It provides 
considerable investments in our next-generation Arleigh Burke-class 
destroyers, including an increase of $1.7 billion to restore a second 
guided missile destroyer to this year's budget and $125 million for 
long lead material for our destroyer in fiscal year 2023.
  The bill authorizes $4.8 billion for the Columbia-class submarine 
program and for industrial-based development and expansion in support 
of the Virginia and Columbia shipbuilding programs, an increase of $130 
million.
  I was up at Quonset Point, RI, recently, where all submarines start 
their construction. Along with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, 
Secretary Hicks, we saw the progress that we are making to build two 
Virginia-class submarines a year and turning out the first Columbia-
class ballistic missile ship to replace the Ohio class.
  We are moving forward. And, frankly, many believe--as I do--that 
undersea strength is the best form of deterrence that we have. And as 
we deploy more submarines, we will have a greater ability to deter 
potential conflict.
  This bill also increases the Landing Helicopter Assault replacement 
funding by $350 million and the Expeditionary Fast Transport vessel 
program by $270 million.
  Growing our surface and undersea warfare capabilities will be vital 
to our success in the Indo-Pacific region, and this NDAA makes 
important progress in this area. It is consistent with our defense 
strategy of shifting our focus to the Pacific, which requires a shift 
of resources to the Navy and Marine Corps.
  Similarly, the bill authorizes funding to strengthen naval aviation, 
including five additional F-35 fighter variants, one additional E-2D 
Hawkeye aircraft, two additional C-130J Hercules aircraft, an 
additional KC-130J tanker, two additional CH-53K helicopters, and two 
MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial systems.
  Now, with respect to the Air Force, the bill increases authorization 
funding by providing an additional F-35A fighter, five additional F-15 
fighters, and extensions on the minimal capacity of several Air Force 
platforms.
  With respect to the Army, I am pleased that the bill advances 
research and development in important future technologies and makes 
broad investments in generational Army modernization efforts and 
continues to upgrade significant enduring capabilities.
  Our bill focuses on filling critical deficiencies and increasing 
investments in rapidly evolving demands. Further, it funds rapid 
development and fielding of land-based, long-range fires, including the 
precision strike missile, medium-range capability, and long-range 
hypersonic weapons.
  It also provides funding for future long-range assault aircraft and 
future attack reconnaissance aircraft, increased funding for the future 
tactical unmanned aircraft system, and authorizes full funding for the 
AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and the UH-60 Black Hawk utility 
helicopters.
  We are at a critical junction in a technological race with our near-
peer competitors. We have enjoyed a technological lead over the last 
many decades. That lead is shrinking, and we have to not only develop 
the best of new technologies; we have to get them in the hands of our 
troops as quickly as possible. And that is what we are trying to do in 
this legislation.
  Again, the issue is deterrence first, and what will help deter any 
conflict will be the realization of our adversaries that they are going 
up against the most sophisticated, technologically capable military in 
the world, manned by the most dedicated and skillful women and men in 
the world. That is what we are hoping to encourage.
  Likewise, with respect to the Army, the bill supports the 
modernization of its ground combat vehicles, including the M1 Abrams 
tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Paladin self-propelled howitzer, 
tactical-type vehicles.
  Having the platforms and the personnel is critical, but they have got 
to be ready to go, and we have taken great pride in trying to improve 
the readiness of our forces.
  This NDAA authorizes more than $2.8 billion for additional military 
construction projects after funding other large projects in the budget 
request. This bill also includes a number of provisions that will help 
acquisition outcomes by strengthening the ability of DOD to analyze the 
defense industrial base, evaluate acquisition programs, and implement 
acquisition reform efforts.
  It also streamlines processes to allow the Pentagon to invest in and 
incorporate advanced commercial technologies to support defense 
missions and strengthen DOD small business programs to allow 
partnerships with innovative, high-tech companies.
  From post-World War II until very recently, we were really in an 
industrial age, and the United States led the world. We have now moved 
to a post-industrial age where the new technologies, the new 
innovations aren't coming out of government labs or the Bell Labs; they 
are coming out of small business; they are coming out of young people 
who have come up with great ideas.
  And what we want to do and what we want to empower the Department of 
Defense to do is to be able to get those ideas, develop them, and 
incorporate them rapidly into our military forces.
  That means we have to develop partnerships with small business and 
think in a different way. We have to think about a more entrepreneurial 
acquisition system rather than ``this is the way we have always done it 
and are going to keep doing it.''
  We also have another area that we have to pay attention to, and that 
is

[[Page S8413]]

the area of the modernization of our nuclear triad. I recognize the 
concerns voiced by some of my colleagues about the cost of, and genuine 
disagreements about, our Nation's nuclear policy. From my perspective, 
nuclear deterrence is the bedrock of our national defense. For our 
nuclear deterrent to be credible and to ensure these weapons never need 
to be used, they must be capable and ready for use.
  The deterrence that we have enjoyed for many, many decades has been 
gained by the acknowledgement by all other nuclear powers that we are 
more than capable to respond. Our allies and partners depend on the 
U.S. nuclear umbrella. That is one of the reasons why the proliferation 
which President Kennedy thought would be almost universal has not 
developed. And modernization of our strategic forces is necessary to 
ensure their dependability.
  One thing I think everyone agrees on, and I think often gets lost in 
the discussion, is another factor: arms control and modernization of 
our nuclear forces are inherently linked together. We must reinvigorate 
our efforts on arms control so that we do not have a situation where 
the proliferation issue becomes more obvious and more dangerous. So 
even as we modernize, we should seek ways to promote strategic 
stability, like the extension of the New START agreement and follow-on 
talks to cover new strategic weapons and further reduce nuclear 
stockpiles. The best way to reduce nuclear weapons is through 
negotiated mutual arms reductions rather than unilateral actions. That 
has been the history of the Cold War, which with the Soviets and the 
United States we were able, with every Presidency, to come up with some 
type of agreement. Unfortunately, we took, I think, a less aggressive 
posture in the last administration, but we have to renew significantly 
our arms control efforts and make them clear that it is mutual interest 
of Russia but also China because China is a growing nuclear power with 
a very deliberate plan to increase significantly their nuclear 
arsenals.
  We have to get a situation where there is at least a trilateral 
negotiation between the United States, China, and Russia for our own 
mutual benefit. And part of that is also not just looking at numbers 
but looking at the safeguards that each country places on the use of 
nuclear weapons.
  We do not want a situation where there is an accidental launch that 
triggers a catastrophic response. We have much to do. But I will 
emphasize again that simply rebuilding our triad without rebuilding our 
diplomacy is not the best path forward.
  What we have tried to do in this bill is to enhance deterrence 
through a number of factors, including recapitalizing the nuclear 
triad; ensuring the safety and security and reliability of our nuclear 
stockpile, our delivery systems, and our infrastructure; increasing 
capacity in theater and homeland missile defense; and strengthening 
nonproliferation programs.
  We have--particularly our land-based missile systems--installations 
that were built in the 1960s. They are roughly 60 years old. They are 
showing wear and tear. And the delivery vehicles are also old. That is 
part of our modernization program. The Columbia class is the first of 
our new ballistic missile submarines. We have to replace the Ohio class 
because, frankly, that fleet will literally wear out. They won't be 
capable to go to sea at some point in the future. And that is why we 
are beginning right now. We are also looking at a new, sophisticated 
armor that will complement the other two legs of the triad.
  And because this involves the Department of Energy and the National 
Nuclear Security Administration, we authorized $20 billion for this 
effort. We have funded the Department of Energy's other defense 
activities at $920 million and its nuclear energy activities at $149.8 
million. This is all part of having an effective deterrence.
  Now, as we have seen, our adversaries are developing other 
capabilities at an alarming rate. With regard to hypersonics, it is 
especially clear that China is working to develop capabilities that 
evade current missile defense capabilities possessed by the United 
States and our allies. To address these threats, the bill authorizes 
the Missile Defense Agency to develop a highly reliable missile defense 
interceptor for the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. It also 
authorizes the procurement of the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense 
system, David's Sling Weapon System, and Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor 
Program to support our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel.
  There was a barrage emanating from Israel's neighbors of 
approximately 4,500 missiles over the last year. And Iron Dome, which 
was created by the Israeli Government, knocked down a significant 
number of those missiles protecting the State of Israel. So this is not 
an academic exercise; this is supporting a close ally.
  And it is also clear, as I mentioned before, China is expanding its 
nuclear weapons stockpile at a faster rate than we have seen from any 
other nation. It appears that China is seeking to at least reach parity 
with the United States and Russia in its efforts to become a world-
class military. To respond to this and other countries' proliferation 
efforts, the NDAA authorizes $239.84 million for Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Programs to stop the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and 
biological threats around the world.
  If you take those three aspects--improving our military capability, 
invigorating our diplomacy, and actively using Cooperative Threat 
Reduction--to lower the ability and capability of those that have 
nuclear weapons, that is the best path ahead.
  Now, we have understood over the last several years that what is 
causing a great deal of destruction in this world in every aspect is 
technology, including cyber space activities. And we, again, are trying 
to hone and invigorate our technological innovation in this area.

  Innovation has long given us the strongest economy and military in 
the world. But it must be nurtured and maintained through careful 
investments and strong leadership in both the public and private 
sectors.
  I believe we have an advantage because we have such a great 
educational system, a great entrepreneurial system, the creativity and 
talent of the American people, but we have to focus on needs for our 
military and national priorities.
  And our top priority for Congress must be maintaining strong 
investments in technology areas that we know will shape future 
conflicts. This year's NDAA includes multiple provisions to accelerate 
the modernization of the Department of Defense by investing in research 
and development of cutting-edge technologies and delivering them in a 
timely manner to the force. Specifically, it authorizes an increase of 
more than $1 billion for science and technology programs that fund 
cutting-edge research and prototyping activities at universities, small 
businesses, defense labs, and industry, including in critical areas 
such as artificial intelligence, microelectronics, advanced materials, 
5G, and biotechnology.
  The bill also authorizes an increase of more than $500 million in 
funding for DARPA, the Defense Advanced Projects Agency. DARPA has been 
conducting high-risk, high-payoff research for years, including such 
areas as quantum computing and assisting with universities to 
accelerate their research. Importantly, the implements a number of 
recommendations from the National Security Commission on Artificial 
Intelligence, which the Armed Services Committee established in a 
previous NDAA. The $500 million of funding for DARPA will be extremely 
critical to the future and will produce, I think, some breakthrough 
technologies that not only DOD will use but will become commercial 
products for our national economy.
  And recognizing, again, the competition between the United States and 
China on certain militarily-relevant technologies, the bill strengthens 
the language of the CHIPS Act to ensure the national network for 
microelectronics research and development to support the development of 
world-leading domestic microelectronics technology and manufacturing 
capabilities.
  Now, I mentioned one of our problems is that we are moving from an 
industrial age, in which we were the dominant power in every dimension, 
to a new post-industrial age, where technological innovation has been 
distributed. Other countries, because of the

[[Page S8414]]

nature of cyber and other technologies, are beginning to catch up with 
it and, in some cases, pass us. Often, and especially in the Department 
of Defense, one of our problems has been procurement and acquisition 
practices. The Department's approach has been convoluted, poorly 
communicated, and burdened with inertia that makes partnering with 
private industry far too difficult. As America confronts threats around 
the globe that are evolving at unprecedented speeds, we must find a 
better way to identify our defense needs, communicate them, and deliver 
them in a timely manner.
  There are several areas that, if transformed, could allow DOD to more 
effectively do this. The fiscal year 2022 NDAA makes important progress 
by establishing an independent commission to review and assess the 
planning, programming, budgeting, and execution--or PPBE--process and 
identify areas for reform.
  The PPBE process has, for many decades, since the 1960s, given DOD 
leaders a way to evaluate the resources they need and to deliver them 
to the troops. However, as I mention consistently, it is a bit of a 
relic of the industrial age.
  It came in 1961 under Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the 
former chief executive of the Ford Company. And at that time, it was 
the most sophisticated way to manage resources and do research, but 
that was the height of the industrial age.
  We are now in a situation much different. So we need to modernize the 
procurement system and the acquisition system that we have in place. We 
have to make it more rapid, more agile, more capable of absorbing new 
products and getting them into the hands of the troops.
  So in addition to establishing this independent review commission, 
the NDAA requires the DOD Comptroller, along with the DOD's Chief 
Information Officer and the Chief Data Officer, to submit a plan to 
consolidate the IT systems used to manage data and support the PPBE 
process.
  One of the things we have discovered is there is no really integrated 
data plan in the Department of Defense--the largest Federal entity. 
There are multiple different brands of software systems, different 
brand of hardware. Some can talk to others, some can't. There is no 
successful company today that has such a, shall we say, slightly 
immature information processing system, and we have got to change it.
  Similarly, management transformation is badly needed with the 
Department. As I said, it is one of the largest bureaucracies in the 
world, and the Government Accountability Office has put the Pentagon's 
approach to business management on its high-risk list, citing its 
vulnerability to waste, fraud, and abuse, inability to pass a financial 
audit, and a culture that remains resistant to change. To spur 
transformation, this NDAA requires the Secretary of Defense to improve 
Pentagon management by leveraging best practices and expertise from 
commercial industry, public administration, and business schools.
  I am confident these steps will allow us to leverage the best of 
American ingenuity and market talent that drives innovation. At the end 
of the day, we should think about management as a defense capability 
like any other. We hope we are opening up a new day of more efficient 
and sophisticated management, more integrated communication, and doing 
it in a way that will produce results that will get the best technology 
into the hands of our fighting men and women.
  One factor that we all are aware of every day is the challenge of 
cyber security. The cyber domain impacts everything we do, so there is 
absolutely no surprise that it has impacted the Defense Department and 
its industrial base. We need to ensure that our industrial base has 
improved cyber security, that they are not the back door through which 
our adversaries will use to enter and gain access to even more critical 
elements of our national security. As the recent SolarWinds, Microsoft 
Exchange Server, and Colonial Pipeline breaches painfully illustrated, 
traditional ``perimeter-based'' cyber defenses are simply inadequate to 
deal with sophisticated threats. Our adversaries are clearly advantaged 
in cyber domain and are likely to succeed in penetrating static 
defenses. Therefore, this NDAA requires the development of a joint 
``zero trust'' cyber security strategy and a model architecture for the 
Department of Defense information network. It also authorizes an 
increase of $268.4 million across DOD to support cyber security 
efforts.
  We all recognize that cyber is a persistent threat to everything we 
do. As one very thoughtful gentleman said years ago at a function I was 
at, ``Breakthrough technology like cyber has two effects. It makes good 
things better and bad things worse.'' And that is exactly what we are 
witnessing every day. So we have to exploit the good things and get 
them into our system and be much more vigilant at protecting us from 
the bad things.
  Similarly, as the COVID crisis has made clear, we need a coordinated 
industrial policy to ensure that we have a robust, secure, and reliable 
technology and industrial base, especially in critical and emerging 
technology.
  We need to give the DOD the tools and expertise to understand its 
supply chain and its physical security challenges, its financial 
challenges, and influence from commercial market trends. To that end, 
this bill directs the Comptroller General to conduct a comprehensive 
assessment of research, development, test, and evaluation authorities 
and other similar authorities and brief Congress on its findings.
  The pandemic has shown many interesting things. Many companies and 
suppliers to our defense thought their products were coming from the 
United States, only to discover that critical components came from 
elsewhere and sometimes countries that were not particularly friendly 
to us. So we have to look seriously at our supply chain.
  Finally, while I spent most of my time speaking about future 
challenges and how we prepare the Department of Defense to face them, 
we cannot lose sight of the events surrounding our withdrawal from 
Afghanistan.
  After nearly 20 years of war, enormous sacrifice by American and 
coalition military, diplomatic, and intelligence personnel and vast 
U.S. investment, the Afghan state has failed, and the Taliban has taken 
control.
  The Armed Services Committee has undertaken a series of hearings 
seeking to understand the collapse of the Afghan National Defense and 
Security Forces. While there is temptation to close the book on 
Afghanistan and simply move on to long-term strategic competition with 
China and Russia, we must learn the lessons of the last two decades to 
ensure that our future counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan or 
anyplace else continue to hold violent extremists at bay.
  The top-line defense number in this bill, together with the 
allocations set by Chairman Leahy for defense and nondefense funding 
across the 12 appropriations bills, provides a realistic balance for 
funding the military and the rest of the Federal Government.
  Once we have completed work on this important authorization bill, we 
need to complete the appropriations process. It would be a tremendous 
mistake and harmful for our national security, our economic prosperity, 
and our public health to resort to a continuing resolution to fund the 
government for an extensive period.
  I have calculated, roughly, that if we go into a yearlong continuing 
resolution, the Department of Defense will lose $36 billion, and the 
consequences of that would be staggering, particularly at this moment 
where we face challenges across the globe.
  We have near-peer competition with Russia and China, dangerous 
developments in East Africa, and situations across the board where we 
need to be ready to go looking at the threats, not looking internally 
at how we are going to pay to keep the lights on.
  Again, to avoid this self-inflicted damage, we have to pass a budget, 
as well as this authorization bill.
  Let me conclude by once again thanking Ranking Member Inhofe and my 
colleagues on the committee for working thoughtfully on a bipartisan 
basis to develop this important piece of legislation.
  I would also like to thank the staff who worked tirelessly on this 
bill throughout the year--and tirelessly is an understatement. While we 
were leaving after our last vote, they were staying hours later to get 
this bill in shape to pass and then to begin our dialogue with the 
House. It is the staff of both sides. I salute my Republican

[[Page S8415]]

colleagues' staffers and my staffers for their job.
  I look forward to a thoughtful debate on the issues as we go forward.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for such time as I shall consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. First of all, this is a big deal, what we are embarking 
on now. It is something that--people understand it is the most 
important thing we do around here.
  Let me just say that my partner Jack Reed and I have been doing this 
a long time. I have often said how fortunate I am. You know, we hear 
all year out there in the real world about how everybody hates 
everybody in Washington; we want to compete with each other. But, you 
know, every year when we do the NDAA--that means the National Defense 
Authorization Act--it is the biggest and the most important bill of the 
year. Even though people think it is all happening inside this 2- or 3-
day period, it is not. It is something that goes on all year long, and 
we have gotten to know each other very well. We know there are some 
areas where we have differences, but very rarely do we have differences 
that would impair our mission, and our mission is the most important 
mission that we have year-round.
  So I appreciate very much Chairman Reed, what he has been doing along 
with me, what we have done together. The NDAA has a long history of 
bipartisanship, and Senator Reed and I have worked together to get this 
bill through the committee with an overwhelming, bipartisan, 23-to-3 
vote to bring it to the floor. That is where we are today. That is 
something you don't hear about in Washington, that you can pass 
something out of a committee by a vote of 23 to 3, but we did, and we 
did it because this is a bill that is done by the Members.
  The world is getting more dangerous by the day. We know that is the 
case. One notable example is what is happening now at the Ukraine 
border. Just weeks after conducting its largest military exercise in 40 
years, Russia came dancing in, advancing a huge military buildup on the 
border. In fact, the Defense Minister from Ukraine was in my office 
this morning and was talking about all the things that are going on 
there.
  According to the image that we have by satellite, we are seeing 
tanks, we are seeing missiles, and we are seeing artillery. Here is why 
I am really concerned: We are seeing even military ambulances. Why 
would Putin be putting in military ambulances if he was not expecting 
casualties? The answer is, he wouldn't. So we have an idea what is 
going to happen.
  In addition to this equipment, the experts are reporting that 90,000 
Russian combat troops are amassed along Ukraine's border. These troops 
are in a more threatening posture than they have ever been before. They 
are in the south and in the north. They are knocking on the door of 
Kyiv. All that is going on right now.
  It might sound crazy that Russia would want to deploy so many forces 
now in November to a region where the winters are brutally cold, but 
there is something not many people really think about; that is, frozen 
ground is easier to move around heavy equipment like tanks and 
artillery.
  I am not the only one who is sounding the alarm on this. Earlier this 
year, Senator Rounds and Congressman Trent Kelly and I visited Romania, 
which, like Ukraine, sits on the frontlines of Russian aggression. At 
that time, Romanian military officials warned us that Russia was moving 
from a defensive to an offensive posture in the Black Sea. We are 
seeing that now. Everything we have predicted is happening now, and 
that assessment of the shift was actually right.
  Putin is capitalizing on what he perceives as U.S. weakness. He knows 
that our NATO allies are disturbed by the catastrophe in Afghanistan 
and that many of the European nations fear that the United States is no 
longer interested in trans-Atlantic security.
  The President shouldn't have done what he did, and we all--I think 
most Americans know that. It was a disaster, the way he put this thing 
together in Afghanistan, and now we know where we are on this. It is 
tempting to say that we have seen this before, but I don't think we 
have just like this.
  So this is about Americans, NATO, the credibility and the capability, 
and that is why the NDAA is so important every year but especially this 
year. But, first, let's be frank: Russia is far from our only threat. 
In 2008--this is a document that a lot of people have looked at and 
thought, why didn't we do this before? This was back, I think, in--what 
was it? About 5 years ago, it was put together. We had what we 
considered to be the top six Democrats and the top six Republicans on 
defense, and they put this book together. It is a very brief book, but 
we have been--this has been our Bible. We have been doing this now for 
a long time, and the things that we were predicting at that time are 
actually becoming a reality.
  It tells us for the first time--and this is significant. People don't 
understand this. For the first time, we have two major adversaries at 
the same time. This hasn't happened before. And, you know, we are 
talking about Russia. Yes, that is significant, and you have heard me 
say this before--the Chinese Communist Party has been investing heavily 
in modernizing its military. Over the last two decades, their military 
spending has gone up 450 percent--just in the last two decades. Now, we 
are not doing that over here.
  You know, I have to say--and everyone realizes this--these communist 
countries have a great advantage. They can move and move quickly, and 
they don't seem to have any limitations. Now, we are seeing the results 
of that investment. They have tested hypersonic missiles that we don't 
even have anymore. I have to say that again. Hypersonic missiles are 
something they have and they are using. They have tested. We have seen 
it. We don't even have it, and we don't have any counter to that. They 
are leapfrogging us in other critical areas, like artificial 
intelligence, and they are rapidly expanding their nuclear arsenal and 
infrastructure.
  These investments in military capability are done with real purpose. 
They are a threat to Taiwan and other allies in the Indo-Pacific. 
Ambassador Bi-khim Hsiao was in my office this morning--Ambassador from 
Taiwan--and we were looking at things that are going on there, just 
like we are looking at from the Russian area.
  But the threat China poses to our own interests can't be overstated 
or underestimated.
  Meanwhile, North Korea--so it is not just those two countries. North 
Korea is out there. Iran is out there. They are also continuing their 
threatening behavior. North Korea is conducting missile tests of its 
own, and Iran continues to back proxies striking at U.S. troops and our 
interests--most recently, we have seen in Syria.
  The terrorist threat in Afghanistan is also resurging thanks to the 
disastrous drawdown that continues to undermine U.S. credibility. We 
know that ISIS-K and al-Qaida have the desire and intent to strike our 
homeland. This is something that a lot of people don't understand. A 
lot of people don't believe the threat that is out there. Now we know 
when they will be able to strike us, and it is closer than you think. 
As soon as 6 months from now, the Senate Armed Services Committee was 
told just last month this could happen.
  So I don't say this to be dramatic. This is a reality, plain and 
simple. The world is more dangerous than it has ever been in my 
lifetime--by the way, people have reminded me over and over again 
yesterday and today, since it was my birthday, how long that lifetime 
has been--and we have seen a lot, but we haven't seen anything like 
this before.
  National security needs to be the top priority. Without a strong 
military defending our way of life, nothing else matters. We can talk 
about other things, but it doesn't really matter if we can't do that.

[[Page S8416]]

  Since World War II, we have ensured peace through the world by 
projecting strength. Our military should and must serve as a strong 
deterrent to our adversaries, and they have to know that they can't 
beat us. Some people are questioning that, but they have to know that 
they can't beat us, and we have to show them that they can't. Yet we 
are fully aware that they have things we don't have. They have 
technology we don't have. This is something we haven't dealt with 
before.
  President Biden's inadequate defense budget request, the 
irresponsible drawdown in Afghanistan--something he shouldn't have 
done; the administration should not have done--and the lack of 
commitment to shared nuclear security are calling that into question. 
It is evidence that we aren't prioritizing national defense, and we 
already have seen what happens when we don't prioritize national 
defense. We see upticks in destabilizing, threatening behavior--exactly 
what Putin is doing right now. Just imagine what would happen if Putin 
and Xi thought they stood a chance to beat us if we didn't turn things 
around, and that could happen.
  It is a reality today that people don't understand and should 
understand. Americans take for granted the idea that our military is 
the best. You know, when I go back to not just my State of Oklahoma but 
all around the country, people assume that.
  You know, I am old enough to remember what was happening at the tail 
end of World War II. We learned a lesson. We learned to be prepared, 
and for a long period of time, we had the best of everything. We had 
the best modern equipment, all of this, and that isn't the case today. 
Americans take for granted that we have the best of everything, but we 
don't. It is just not true anymore.
  Don't just take my word for it, you know, just take it from me; a 
couple of weeks ago, our Nation's No. 2 military adviser, General 
Hyten--no one disagreed--I don't know of anyone who would actually 
argue with General Hyten. He was explaining how China is on pace to 
surpass us if we don't do something to change what is going on today. 
That is General Hyten. I don't know a more knowledgeable person 
anywhere in America or elsewhere.
  We can meet these challenges. We can put our country back on the 
right track. That is going to take real investment and real strategy. 
Congress has a very important role to play here. We pass the National 
Defense Authorization Act and Defense appropriations each year, and 
every year, we give our military what it needs to set this thing right.
  Now, I am proud to say that this year's NDAA goes a long ways to 
making our country more secure. I am not saying it is perfect, but it 
is very good and a necessary start. And that is what this is all about 
now. It is what we are going to be passing--I am talking about tomorrow 
or the next day--and going into this long process that includes both 
the House and the Senate.

  So let's start with one of the biggest ways to strengthen our 
national defense: authorizing an additional $25 billion in funding for 
the Department of Defense. This is just a floor for defense spending.
  Now, it is important that we understand this President has not been a 
good President in terms of building the national defense. He just 
isn't. You know, his budget request shortchanged our national defense. 
In fact, if you put his budget numbers in terms of defense and 
nondefense, the amount that goes to nondefense averages about a 16-
percent increase, and the amount that goes to defense is a 1.6-percent 
increase. Now, that is the President's budget. It is not my budget. It 
is not our budget. It hasn't passed, but nonetheless, that gives you an 
idea of where we are right now. The emphasis is not on defense. It 
should be, and it is not.
  President Biden's budget request shortchanged the national defense. 
It didn't even keep pace with out-of-control inflation. Inflation right 
now--the figure is above the 1.6 percent, and that is where we are 
today. It actually cut funding for our military even as we face the 
growing threats that I mentioned. And we are talking about the--
compared to the inflation thing that is happening right now. So I am 
glad the Armed Services Committee almost unanimously adopted my 
amendment to increase the Department of Defense's budget top line. This 
is the bare minimum of what we need to meet the threats that we face. 
This is what underscores everything we do.
  The bill also makes sure this money is spent the right way. As we 
have for the past few years, we are using the 2018 national defense 
strategy--that is this book I referenced just a minute ago--as kind of 
our roadmap, and we are using this for that.
  The NDAA focuses on the Indo-Pacific, which is our priority theater, 
by emphasizing investment in the region through the Pacific Deterrence 
Initiative, the PDI, which we started in last year's bill.
  The way this works is we are--it is continuing as time goes by. We 
have a bill, and the bill is activated, usually in December, but then 
we are already into the next year. So while this seems--people say: You 
are only talking about one bill a year. It doesn't really work out that 
way.
  It strengthens our supply chain so we are not reliant upon China, but 
we are doing that right now. It addresses the threats posed from 
information warfare, and it deters the foreign malign influence. It 
also stands strong against Russia.
  Perhaps most importantly, it provides critical lethal aid to Ukraine, 
and we know that these things are working. While radios and cold-
weather gear are needed, they won't deter Putin's strategy and his 
ambitions. Weapons like the Javelin anti-tank missiles, on the other 
hand, remind him that invading and annexing Kyiv will have real and 
concrete costs.
  We know Russia and China are expanding their nuclear arsenals. Our 
nuclear stockpile serves as the cornerstone for our deterrent, so we 
have to keep it safe, secure, and effective. That is why the NDAA 
supports the nuclear modernization our military commanders say is their 
top priority.
  It provides support for our allies and partners around the world. 
Unfortunately, our allies and partners are questioning our commitment 
right now after what happened in Afghanistan, and they are feeling like 
they were being told and not consulted. They didn't even know--that 
withdrawal that should not have taken place but did take place in 
Afghanistan is one that they were not even aware of.
  It provides the reassurance of American credibility that they 
desperately need to rebuild and cement those relationships. With strong 
allies and partners around the world, we will ensure the balance of 
power in our favor, but we are not there yet.
  When it comes to hard power, this bill makes serious investments in 
equipment we need to fight and win wars now--growing our naval fleet, 
expanding next-generation fighter capability, and providing for the 
largest investment in military construction in a decade.
  It looks to the future too. We know that we need to accelerate 
innovation and develop the technology that is going to help defeat 
whatever our enemies might throw our way. Yet, in many of these 
emerging technologies, we risk falling behind. In some cases, we 
already have fallen behind. It is kind of hard for us to accept that in 
America, as we went through several decades--I think since the Second 
World War--not falling behind, but we have now. So this year's NDAA 
invests in defense technology that would put us back ahead of our 
competitors. That is our goal. Things like microelectronics, artificial 
intelligence, hypersonic weapons, 5G--these are the areas that we are 
working on to get back in the driver's seat. We have fallen behind. It 
is hard to say that, that America is falling behind.
  You know, General Hyten said recently something that I really think 
is important for everyone to hear. He said that we must ``focus on 
speed and re-inserting speed back in the process of the Pentagon . . . 
and that means taking risk, and that means learning from failures, and 
that means failing fast and moving fast.''
  I have to say that General Hyten is certainly one of the greatest 
warriors of our time. We should be listening to him.

  We have serious problems. We have to get policies and authorities in 
place to let the Pentagon move quickly and, as General Hyten put it, 
``fail fast.'' As he retires this week, I think it is clear

[[Page S8417]]

why he is a national hero. He knows what is going on.
  Now, too much is hampered by bureaucracy at the Pentagon. The NDAA 
encourages the Pentagon to move faster, to take risks, and to jumpstart 
the innovation that we need to succeed, but we have to realize the 
impact.
  This is really the most important thing this bill does. We take care 
of our troops. People talk all the time about how much we spend on 
military. I hear a lot of people around who don't think we need a 
strong military. A lot of them talk about why we spend more on our 
military than Russia and China put together.
  Yes, that is true; but we have costs that others don't have. 
Communist countries don't have the cost of taking care of their people. 
In fact, the most important thing we do is take care of our troops. 
Even though China and Russia are building up and modernizing their 
militaries, they don't take care of their people--they don't claim to 
take care of their people--and we do. The most expensive thing we do in 
our military is to take care of our military. We take care of the 
schools and the people who are out there taking the risk.
  This bill takes care of our troops in so many ways. It improves their 
healthcare. It provides education and childcare for their children, and 
makes sure their spouses can have meaningful employment as they move 
from area to area. It is a unique problem that our spouses do have, as 
they are moving around the country.
  And so, again, we are competing with China and Russia and other 
countries, and none of them have this problem. This is the greatest 
expense that we do. Our servicemembers represent the very best in the 
country. If they do have to go into harm's way, it is our 
responsibility that they are the best prepared, best equipped, and the 
best led forces in the battlefield, and the bill does that.
  But we don't want them to go to war. We want to prevent those wars 
from happening. As I said earlier, the best way we do that is by 
projecting strength, sending a message to our adversaries that there is 
no chance that they can beat us.
  The NDAA is the major way that we send that message. And that is why 
the NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act, the most significant 
bill of the year--has been enacted into law every year for the past 60 
years. This will be the 61st year.
  So we are going to get it passed, but it almost never comes up this 
late in the year. This is the disadvantage we are working from, but it 
always gets done eventually. We still have a lot of work left to do 
after this and not a lot of time to do it.
  You know, we can't afford late starts. If you do late starts, 
sometimes it ends up being just down to four people. Both my partner 
and I have been in this situation where we have been down to what they 
call the big four, making all these decisions ourselves. That is not 
what we are supposed to be doing. That is not what we want to do. But 
that is why the NDAA has been enacted into law every year for 60 years.
  We built this bill around Member requests. This is unique. This is 
something people need to understand. We are getting our requests from 
the Members that are serving with us here in the Senate. We are going 
to have an open amendment process. We are going to have an open 
amendment process, and this is what we have committed ourselves to do, 
to make sure we are doing. So you will get another chance to mark up 
this bill.
  So what we are doing right now is very important. You got to keep in 
mind, it is going to be done by the House; it is going to be done by 
the Senate. It is going to be something that is the most significant 
thing that is happening this year. But we could never work too hard or 
too long for our troops and national defense.
  I know some of my colleagues are concerned about one provision we've 
got--that we have in this bill at this time, which was added in markup 
and included in the House bill too. Now, I oppose the addition of this 
provision, which changes the military draft--what the military draft 
does. And I want you to hear this because, if enacted, it would expand 
the draft so that it is not just about finding combat replacements to 
serve on the frontlines; it also requires women to register for the 
Selective Service, not just men.
  I've always said, as a product of the draft myself, I know what the 
draft is. I was there and I served. I have always said that I 
understand that and I think the draft is essential. It changed my life, 
certainly. But I am strongly opposed to drafting our daughters and our 
granddaughters. So this is going to be coming up. We are going to be 
talking about this. Everything is going to be out in the open. Get 
ready for that fight, because that fight is coming, OK?
  That is why I submitted an amendment to strike this provision from 
the underlying bill, and I will work to get it out of any conference 
report as well, OK?
  Last week, we marked Veterans Day, and that should be a reminder to 
all of us why we do this. In fact, we have got 2.2 million reasons to 
do this--2.2 million future veterans--our volunteer force, who put 
their lives in harm's way and who rely on this bill getting done. And 
that doesn't even include their families, who are sacrificing so much. 
So that's out there, we know, and that is going to happen.
  I know my colleagues understand this. I know they understand our 
responsibility to our troops and to the American people. And so I look 
forward to our debate on this bill, and then passing it in the 
traditional, bipartisan way, as we always do; and, together, we are 
going to fulfill our constitutional duty and meet these challenges that 
we face, and we have little time to waste in doing this.
  So this is the most significant bill of the year. That is what we are 
going to do. We are going to get it done. And let's go do it right, OK?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has taken up 
the National Defense Authorization Act.
  There is a 60-year tradition in this body of getting this bill done 
because the importance of this bill transcends partisanship. In fact, 
81 Senators of both parties joined forces earlier this year to override 
a senseless veto of this important bill by the former President.
  Now, while both sides of the aisle can work cooperatively to get this 
defense policy done, we are now seeing unprecedented--unprecedented--
obstruction by the minority party for passing a budget that will fund 
the programs that our military and our veterans need.
  Now, look, if Republicans succeed in this obstruction, I am going to 
tell you that the government will be forced to go to a full-year 
continuing resolution. That is not workable. The result will be frozen 
spending levels for the Department of Defense and for the Department of 
Veterans Affairs, which amounts to a $70 billion cut in spending for 
those two Agencies alone, compared to the appropriations bills prepared 
in the U.S. Senate.
  I serve as chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, and 
let me tell you what is at stake for America's veterans and their 
families. Funding will be blocked for priorities like expanding 
veterans' access to lifesaving mental healthcare services, enhancing 
women veterans' healthcare, providing housing assistance, and 
expediting the delivery of benefits and care for those suffering from 
toxic exposure.
  Let me say this again.
  If we go to a 1-year continuing resolution, that means we go off of 
last year's budget, last year's spending bill. We will block priorities 
like expanding access to mental health services for our veterans. We 
will block services for expanding women veterans' healthcare. We will 
block services for housing assistance and for expediting what is one of 
the most serious issues coming out of the conflict of 20 years in the 
Middle East, and that is care for those that are suffering from toxic 
exposure.
  The bottom line is this would keep the VA from properly addressing a 
whole host of issues on behalf of those who would put their lives on 
the line for this country, and they are going to continue to pay the 
price for us not doing our job.
  As chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I was able to 
draft a bill that provided a $31 billion increase for defense compared 
to last year. This military bill is consistent with the spending levels 
approved by

[[Page S8418]]

the bill we are working on today. In fact, in an amendment offered by 
Senator Inhofe, that amendment passed 25 to 1, which will plus-up this 
bill.
  So why isn't the defense appropriations bill flying through this 
Senate just like the NDAA?
  Well, I will tell you. In September, the Republicans on the 
Appropriations Committee announced they would vote against all 
appropriations bills in part because Senator Inhofe's bill doesn't 
increase defense with enough spending. So the idea here is, just take 
money and throw it at the wall and hope that it's spent right.
  The bottom line is there needs to be plans and there needs to be 
planning. And I am going to tell you, the last time I checked, the $31 
billion increase is a pretty good chunk of dough.
  So it is simple. Do we want to fund the VA? Do we want to fund the 
military? Do we want to fund this country's government?
  Or do we want to go back to last year's funding? Which, by the way, 
would be totally inadequate, but it is what some on the other side of 
the aisle are advocating right now.
  Look, guys, we are in a continuing resolution right now. It expires 
on December 3. If, in fact, we had a budget deal today, we couldn't get 
an omnibus out for nearly 5 weeks.
  So what I am saying is this: no more finger pointing, no more 
changing the rules of the game, no more foot dragging. Do what the gang 
of 10 did on the bipartisan infrastructure package. Let's go into 
negotiations to get to yes. Let's all work together. Let's not play 
irresponsible political games with our military and with our veterans 
and with everybody else who lives in this country.
  What are we here for? Are we here to advocate for this country? Or 
are we here to advocate for a political party?
  I am telling you the appropriations bills should have been done last 
September. We should be sitting at the table today. I am ready to roll 
up my sleeves and help in any way that I possibly can to make sure 
these bills get through this body and to the President's desk so we can 
fund our veterans and fund the needs that they have, so we can fund our 
military and deal with the threats that are facing us around the world.
  It is time, folks. It is time to quit talking, and it is time to 
start doing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my fellow Senators: On November 4 of 
this year, I introduced an amendment to this year's national defense 
bill. This amendment focuses on the Office of Net Assessment. That 
office is within the Pentagon.
  The Office of Net Assessment's purpose is to produce an annual net 
assessment, which is a long-term look at our military capabilities and 
those of our greatest adversaries.
  In 2019, when I began to look at Stefan Halper's contracting work for 
the Office of Net Assessment, something didn't look right. So I asked 
the inspector general to look into it.
  For those who are unaware, Halper was a central figure in the 
debunked Russia collusion investigation. And I don't have to explain 
the Russia collusion investigation; everybody in the U.S. Senate knows 
something about that and they know what it refers to.
  Halper secretly, at that time, recorded Trump campaign officials 
during Crossfire Hurricane.
  Halper also received over 1 million taxpayer dollars from the Office 
of Net Assessment for several research projects. But the question is: 
Were they really research projects?
  But the inspector general found some problems with his contract:
  The Office of Net Assessment didn't require Halper to submit evidence 
that he actually talked to the people he cited in his work, which 
included Russian intelligence officers.
  Secondly, the Office of Net Assessment couldn't provide sufficient 
documentation that Halper conducted all of his work in accordance with 
the law.
  Thirdly, the Office of Net Assessment didn't maintain sufficient 
documents to comply with all of the Federal contracting requirements 
and OMB's guidelines.
  The inspector general also found that these problems weren't unique 
to Halper's contract. This is the inspector general speaking up on 
this. I am reporting what he said. So these findings indicate systemic 
issues within the Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon.
  Moreover, this office has spent taxpayers' money on research projects 
unconnected to net assessments. In other words, they are spending money 
and wasting money that doesn't deal very closely with our national 
defense.
  Two cases in point: The office funded a report titled ``On the Nature 
of Americans as a Warlike People: Workshop Report.''
  Now, that report highlighted the ``level of American belligerency 
which is the result of the persistence of Scotch-Irish culture in 
America.''
  That ought to get a lot of your attention. What does that have to do 
with the assessment of the capability of us to deliver on the 
constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government to the defense 
of the American people? Or what does that have to do with our assessing 
the capability of our enemies?
  Yet another report focused on Vladimir Putin's neurological 
development and potential Asperger's diagnosis.
  Now, I have highlighted these reports for the Pentagon, and I have 
asked for records from the Office of Net Assessment relating to some of 
its other work as well. To date, they still haven't been able to 
provide all of the records that they ought to provide to the Congress 
of the United States, under our constitutional responsibility, to see 
that money is faithfully spent according to congressional intent and 
that the laws are faithfully executed.
  While the Office of Net Assessment was busy wasting taxpayers' money 
and not responding to congressional requests, China built its 
hypersonic missile program.
  Are we on top of that program? It has got something to do with our 
enemy's capability.
  As a result of all of these failures, then, like I told you, I 
introduced my amendment to the defense bill on November 4. The 
amendment would require the Government Accountability Office to 
determine how much taxpayer money this unit actually uses for net 
assessment--the reason they were set up.
  Are they doing their job? Are they following the law? Are they 
spending the taxpayers' money responsibly?
  I think I have shown, in some instances, where they have not.
  The amendment would filter out taxpayer-funded research that has 
nothing to do with net assessment. In other words, the Office of Net 
Assessment ought to be doing net assessment, and that deals with the 
capability of the U.S. Government to do the No. 1 responsibility of the 
Federal Government: the national defense of the American people.
  The second responsibility of this Agency is to determine the 
capability of our enemies to do damage to us. In other words, it is 
time that we find out how much money the Office of Net Assessment needs 
to actually do its job instead of acting like a slush fund for 
irrelevant or political research projects.
  Of course, if this happens and the taxpayers' money is spent 
properly, this, in turn, will save the taxpayers, potentially, millions 
of dollars a year.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              The Economy

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, families back home in Texas are planning 
their Thanksgiving menus, but they are also bracing for steep grocery 
bills. Prices are up for just about every part of a typical 
Thanksgiving meal. The cost of a frozen turkey is the highest in 
history. Things like potatoes, butter, pumpkin pies, even salt, cost 
more than they did a year ago.
  It is not just going to cost more to eat; it is going to cost more to 
cook. Appliance prices have skyrocketed over the past year, as have 
electricity bills, and family members will have to

[[Page S8419]]

pay a lot more just to visit their friends and relatives because gas 
prices are up 60 percent from last year.
  As families are being pummeled by higher prices and inflation, our 
Democratic colleagues are planning to hand major savings to a select 
group of Americans, just not the ones you think and certainly not the 
ones who need the help.
  Despite their cries of taxing the rich, the Democrats are plotting an 
absolutely massive handout to the wealthiest Americans. This windfall 
is not distributed through stimulus checks or lower tax rates. That 
would be far too obvious. Instead, our Democratic colleagues are 
relying on a range of gimmicky sunsets and expirations to dole out the 
millionaire tax break.
  If they thought no one would notice, well, they would be wrong. For 
example, The Washington Post headline says it all. It reads: ``The 
second-biggest program in the Democrats' spending plan gives billions 
to the rich.''
  That is not how our colleagues have tried to brand their legislation. 
They would portray themselves as modern-day Robin Hoods--stealing from 
the rich to give to the poor.
  Strange in that it is really just the opposite. They talk about the 
wealthy paying their fair share and giving working families free 
programs, but the reality of the situation is far different from the 
picture they paint, and the wealthiest Americans stand to reap big 
benefits under this legislation.
  For example, the Democrats have included a provision that will allow 
millionaires and billionaires in blue States to pay less in Federal 
taxes. As the headline notes, this handout comes with a big pricetag of 
$285 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. It is more 
expensive than the clean energy and climate provisions in their bill; 
more expensive than paid family leave; more expensive than the combined 
cost of the child tax credit and home-based services.
  And there is no denying that the beneficiaries of this ultraexpensive 
provision are the wealthiest Americans. According to the Tax Policy 
Center, about 70 percent of the benefit goes to the top 5 percent of 
wage earners--70 percent goes to the top 5 percent. That is people 
making more than $366,000 a year, roughly six times the median 
household income of Texans. We were not talking about saving a few 
dollars here and there. The top 1 percent would save an average of 
$14,900 next year, and the bottom 40 percent of taxpayers wouldn't be 
given a dime's worth of a break in their taxes.

  The rich in America who stand to gain the most from this change are 
those who live in blue States, like New York and California that have 
higher State and local taxes. They would, under this legislation, get 
to deduct up to $80,000 in their State and local taxes from next year's 
Federal tax return, leaving everybody else to fill up the gap.
  Working families in Texas should not have to subsidize the tax bill 
for Manhattan millionaires. If the wealthiest people in New York or 
California think their State and local taxes are too high, there is a 
pretty simple solution: Tell your elected officials to cut taxes or you 
can do like many people are doing these days, vote with your feet and 
move to places like Texas.
  Over the last decade, Californians have flocked to my State by the 
hundreds of thousands. People do vote with their feet, and they clearly 
support what we are doing in Texas.
  We have been happy to welcome folks from all around the country who 
are in search of lower taxes, affordable homes, and a better standard 
of living.
  Blue State millionaires can't expect my constituents to subsidize 
their tax bills. They need to either pay their taxes or maybe they need 
to decide to move to someplace where they are not taxed at such a high 
rate.
  Under this bill, two-thirds of those making more than $1 million will 
receive a tax cut next year. Let me say that again. The vast majority 
of millionaires will, under the Democratic legislation, receive a tax 
break, and nearly 90 percent of those earning between $500,000 and $1 
million will receive a tax cut. This is a sharp contrast from how 
middle-class working families are treated.
  Less than a third of those earning between $20 and $100,000 a year 
will receive a significant tax cut. And the following year, 2023, those 
savings dramatically decrease.
  Year over year, the tax provisions in this bill change dramatically. 
In fact, there is not a single year over the next decade in which each 
tax provision will be used at the same time.
  Democrats aren't rewriting the Tax Code to make millionaires pay 
their fair share; they are gaming it to create the illusion of 
fairness.
  Some programs begin immediately and end after 1 year. Some don't even 
take effect for a couple of years. These are plain budgetary gimmicks. 
After all, they can't afford to give billionaires a tax break and dole 
out increased social welfare programs. The fact of the matter is, the 
millionaire tax break in their legislation is the largest handout for 
wealthy Americans. But it is not the only one in the bill.
  This legislation would allow people earning hundreds of thousands of 
dollars to receive up to $12,500 from the taxpayers if they buy an 
electric vehicle. They also can receive up to $900 to purchase an e-
bike, which is obviously less green than a good old-fashioned regular 
bike.
  The Democrats' reckless tax-and-spending bill also creates handouts 
for union bosses, trials lawyers, wealthy media corporations, and a 
host of powerful friends of the Democratic Party. All of these handouts 
may appease some of our colleagues' wealthiest supporters, but it will 
only make life harder for working families.
  Families earning just over the median household income, which is just 
under $62,000 in Texas, could see their childcare costs soar by as much 
as $13,000.
  And the climate policies in this bill are sure to drive energy prices 
even higher. Gasoline already costs 60 percent more today than it did a 
year ago. That is a combination of inflation and the policies of this 
administration which attack the very energy industry that we depend 
upon to provide affordable energy.
  If the Democrats manage to get this grab bag of radical climate 
policies signed into law, prices at the pump will go even higher.
  So this bill will not, as advertised, help America to build back 
better. It will ensure that we never reach the prepandemic recovery 
that was the envy of the world.
  No public relations campaign can hide the truth about this bill. This 
is a reckless tax-and-spending spree that will benefit the wealthiest 
of Americans at the cost of working families.
  The last thing we need to do is to line the pockets of wealthy 
Americans while driving up the costs of the middle class.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3243

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, this is now the 17th time I have come to the 
Senate Chamber specifically to speak against President Biden's vaccine 
mandate.
  I have pledged before, and I pledge again today, to continue this 
fight until we beat the mandate.
  Now, thankfully, progress has been made on this front. The U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit last week halted enforcement of 
President Biden's general mandate. It did so directing their rulings 
specifically to the OSHA portion of the mandate. This is the one that 
applies to all workers everywhere and any place of employment with more 
than 100 workers.
  I, along with millions of Americans, am grateful that the U.S. court 
system performed its role in protecting the separation of powers and 
otherwise protecting the limits on government written into our laws and 
our Constitution.
  It is also encouraging to see the government Agency charged with 
enforcing the general mandate; that is, OSHA, has now halted the 
enforcement of the mandate and is complying with the order issued by 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
  This, however, does not end President Biden's vaccine mandates. That

[[Page S8420]]

mandate in particular remains the subject of ongoing litigation, and 
there are other requirements placed on other specific groups of workers 
outside of the OSHA mandate and, therefore, outside the scope of the 
order issued by the Fifth Circuit.
  Now, I have spoken previously on the situation that members of our 
Armed Forces face and on things that people who work in the healthcare 
profession face--difficult things, challenging things, things that 
threaten their livelihoods and cause a lot of problems for workers.
  I have offered various bills to help those groups of Americans keep 
their jobs and make sure that they have the right to make their own 
medical decisions.
  I am fighting against the mandate. I am not fighting against the 
vaccines. I support the vaccines. I am vaccinated. I have encouraged 
others to be vaccinated. I see the development of these vaccines as 
something of a modern medical miracle, one that is protecting so many 
millions of Americans from the harms of COVID.
  But this one-size-fits-all dictate from Washington certainly isn't 
the answer and, under our system of government, can't be. I have heard 
from hundreds of Utahns who are personally at risk of losing their jobs 
and their livelihoods due to this mandate. Many of these Utahns have 
religious or health concerns about the vaccine.
  President Biden promised these mandates would include exemptions for 
those people in those categories specifically, but in reality they are 
being dismissed or placed on unpaid leave or pushed into retirement 
with reduced benefits.
  These are good people, everyday people. Many are dedicated frontline 
workers. Far too many are just trying to make ends meet and feed their 
families. It shouldn't be too much to ask to allow them to continue 
doing that unencumbered by their own government in their efforts to do 
that.
  These mandates will just push people out of work and make many of 
them not only unemployed but unemployable outcasts in their chosen 
professions, professions for which they have spent years studying and 
learning and receiving certifications just in order to work. What a 
tragedy.
  This wouldn't just harm those affected directly by the mandates. It 
absolutely would harm those directly affected by them, but the harm 
extends much further than those directly affected. It would affect all 
of us, in fact.
  The American economy is currently facing a labor shortage the likes 
of which we haven't seen in decades. Businesses across the country are 
struggling to find enough workers just to keep their doors open, let 
alone produce and serve at full efficiency. President Biden's mandate 
will add to our high unemployment and our low labor force participation 
rates, and it will put even more pressure on inflation--inflation that 
is making it harder for Americans everywhere, especially the poor and 
middle-class Americans, people living paycheck to paycheck who find 
that every dollar they earn is buying less of everything, from gas to 
groceries, from housing to healthcare.
  Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell recently warned that ``hiring 
difficulties and other constraints could continue to limit how quickly 
supply can adjust, raising the possibility that inflation could turn 
out to be higher and more persistent than we expected.''
  The mandate is only worsening the problem.
  Now, I believe the Biden administration recognizes the harms this 
mandate will cause for our workforce. It is evident in the 
administration's date of compliance extension to January 4 that this is 
the case.
  Now, I have to ask an obvious question here--or one that I think 
should be obvious, should be intuitive. If the forced vaccination of 
our entire Federal workforce, including employees and contractors and 
subcontractors--if forcing the vaccination of every one of these 
workers--were truly an emergency so drastic that all workers, 
contractors, and subcontractors, even those working remotely in their 
own homes, must be vaccinated immediately, then why would they risk 
delaying compliance?
  They can't have it both ways. If they want to say that this is an 
emergency; this is dire, so dire that we have to force every 
contractor, subcontractor, and Federal employee to get vaccinated 
immediately and we have to fire them if they don't--if that is truly so 
emergent--then why delay it to January 4? Why delay it at all?
  Now, to be sure, it would be bad. And, to be sure, I am glad they 
have extended it. Perhaps, maybe, this means they are reconsidering 
this awful, horrible step, this horrible thing that they are inflicting 
on those who can least afford to absorb something like this. But it 
really does undercut the emergent nature of the situation, and it 
undercuts their underlying reasoning that this has to happen 
immediately, so immediately that we have to fire all of them if they 
won't submit to Presidential medical orthodoxy.
  This mandate is even so drastic that it includes all workers and all 
contractors, including all those who work remotely, who don't even go 
into a workplace. And it also includes even those who have natural 
immunity from a previous case of COVID-19, something that some studies 
have indicated will provide 27 times the immunity of a vaccine.
  Again, vaccines are great. I have been vaccinated. I have encouraged 
others to do the same. Vaccines are protecting hundreds of millions of 
Americans right now. But why not take into account their natural 
immunity, and why on earth would you fire someone who already has 
natural immunity or who works from home? That makes absolutely no 
sense.
  This mandate simply goes far beyond what is reasonable. It begs all 
sorts of questions. Why are you doing this?
  So, today, I am offering a bill to help another group--yet another 
group of people--a group consisting of people not protected by the 
Fifth Circuit's halting of the general vaccine mandate. Federal workers 
are still facing a vaccine requirement from the Biden administration. 
Almost 3 million workers in this country are employed by the Federal 
Government. Many of them have reached out to me and my office and are 
concerned about losing their jobs due to this mandate. I know I am not 
the only one. I know that every single Member of this body has received 
phone calls, letters, emails, and other pleas for help from people who 
don't want to lose their jobs.

  This is a response to them. This is an effort to try to help them and 
part of my ongoing effort to reemphasize the fact that it doesn't have 
to be this way. My bill, the Protecting Our Federal Workforce from 
Forced COVID-19 Vaccination Act, would prohibit an executive Agency 
from requiring its employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. It is a 
simple solution to prevent more unemployment and to protect countless 
Americans from being forced out of the workforce.
  This bill will help protect Americans' right to make their own 
medical decisions and will help protect our economy as it strains under 
multiple crises and as the holiday season comes around.
  I encourage and sincerely implore all of my colleagues to support it.
  To that end, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3243, which is at the 
desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and 
passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). Is there objection?
  Mr. PETERS. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, in an ideal world we would not need a 
vaccine mandate. In the ideal world the vast majority of people who can 
get vaccinated would heed the advice of scientists and of public health 
officials and take the very simple step to get vaccinated so that we 
can get this pandemic under control.
  But, unfortunately, our reality is very different. We have been 
working to contain this virus and manage this unprecedented health 
crisis for nearly 2 years now. It has cost us more than 765,000 
American lives, and millions of other Americans have been infected and 
may face lifelong health challenges as a result.

[[Page S8421]]

  It doesn't have to be this way. We have safe, effective, and 
lifesaving vaccines that are now, thankfully, available to a 
significant number of Americans.
  Vaccines are our best tool to finally get this pandemic under 
control, and requiring the folks who are able to get vaccinated is just 
simply common sense. We are all tired of this pandemic, and we all want 
it to end. We are tired of wearing masks because some folks refuse to 
get vaccinated. We are tired of wondering if we could unknowingly be 
exposing our vulnerable family members who are taking every precaution. 
We are tired of waiting for enough people to get vaccinated so that our 
schools and our businesses and our daily lives can just get back to 
normal.
  And we are tired of emergency rooms and healthcare workers getting 
overrun by COVID cases from people who are not vaccinated, when we 
already have the best tool to prevent the spread in the first place. 
Our frontline healthcare workers are being crushed by the consistently 
high number of cases, and public health experts are predicting that yet 
another spike will likely hit this winter unless people get vaccinated.
  In my home State of Michigan, the number of unvaccinated patients 
hospitalized with COVID is once again climbing. A headline from today 
noted that Michigan has just reached a new pandemic record with the 
highest COVID case average in the Nation and that deaths across the 
State continue to rise. Emergency rooms are packed, and in some areas 
patients are forced to wait for hours or for days to be admitted.
  There is one key factor that is driving this horrific scenario: 88 
percent of the cases, 88 percent of the hospitalizations, and 88 
percent of the tragic deaths were all people who were unvaccinated.
  We can put an end to this nightmare by getting more Americans 
vaccinated.
  You know, we require so many preventive measures to keep ourselves 
and others safe. We wear seatbelts in our cars. We require hardhats on 
construction sites. We get vaccinated to protect ourselves against a 
whole number of health risks. And we do it because we know it saves 
lives and it keeps people healthy.
  The answer is simple: Get vaccinated.
  Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the thoughtful remarks and the 
insights of my friend and distinguished colleague the Senator from 
Michigan. He is someone with whom I enjoy working, and one of the many 
things I appreciate about him is that he puts a lot of thought into 
everything he does. And I have always known him to be considerate, and 
I appreciate that about him.
  I also am in agreement with the fact that in an ideal world people 
would be getting vaccinated more than they are. And in that world, if 
more people got vaccinated, I do think there would be fewer 
hospitalizations, fewer deaths, and fewer COVID infections. And there 
are a lot of data sources supporting that.
  I also agree that we are all tired as a country, as individuals, as 
families, regardless of what State we live in. We are tired of the 
pandemic, of the ERs being overcrowded, and things like that. These are 
all things we want to do away with. And I also agree with my colleague 
from Michigan that those things really would be alleviated if more 
people got vaccinated.
  In my mind, the question that we are discussing here isn't about a 
disagreement over the objectives that we have got; it is more about how 
to get there, who has authority to take what action and what 
consequences might attach to government actions.
  Notwithstanding the fact that my friend from Michigan and I both 
agree that the American people, to the extent they have been 
vaccinated, are benefiting as a whole from being vaccinated, it doesn't 
mean that everyone is going to agree.
  It doesn't get rid of disagreements that exist, in some cases, 
because of our religious belief or other moral conviction--one that I 
don't happen to share and probably most of us in this body don't happen 
to share, but that some people have.
  There are some people who, for religious or moral reasons, believe 
that they shouldn't be vaccinated. There are others who have a specific 
medical condition that has involved receiving medical advice from 
board-certified medical doctors that someone shouldn't get this 
particular vaccine.
  I am not a doctor. I am not a scientist. I don't purport to 
understand these things. But I do know what I hear from Utahns, which 
is that a number of them have cited medical conditions of one sort or 
another; previous personal or family medical history that has signaled 
particular sensitivity to vaccines in general; or, in some cases, when 
people have autoimmune conditions of one sort or another or a 
combination of them.
  In some cases, doctors are concerned about inflaming that condition, 
inflaming the immune system of particular patients, and on that basis 
advise their patients with particular, somewhat unusual medical 
histories not to be vaccinated.
  There are others, still, who might not fit into either of these 
categories, but might consist of people who have already had the 
coronavirus and have recovered from it at some point over the last 18 
months.
  There are studies indicating that natural immunity is real, and that 
have suggested that natural immunity can convey comparable immunity to 
that available under the vaccine. Some of the studies have indicated 
that that immunity could not only be as strong as, but, in some cases, 
27 times stronger than that conferred by the vaccine.
  I had both. I had the coronavirus over a year ago and I still chose 
to be vaccinated in addition to that. My own experience with the 
coronavirus wasn't all that pleasant. It wasn't an experience that I 
care to relive. In consultation with my doctor, I concluded that it was 
a good thing for me to get it. I was willing to get it, especially upon 
learning that it might help protect me even further if I also had the 
vaccine in addition to having natural immunity.
  But, you know, not everyone is going to reach the same conclusions. 
And one of the struggles that we have had as a country involves 
difficult questions that people face when they disagree--when they have 
a genuine disagreement. We have to be careful about how we use 
government power because the government power necessarily involves the 
use of force.
  Most of the time, mercifully, it doesn't have to involve the direct 
actual use of force. It can involve the implicit or implied or future 
or prospective use of force. In other words, you comply with this or 
that law or regulation or government dictate of one sort of another, 
then you are fine. If you don't, you know that at some point there will 
be consequences.
  A lot of people comply voluntarily after they received--I don't 
know--a notice from a law enforcement officer or agent. Or maybe they 
wait until someone has sued them, and then they get a court order. But 
they know that at some point, if they refuse to comply, the government 
can enforce what it is requiring.
  So whenever we involve government in these kinds of decisions, we 
have to be able to defend the actual or threatened or potential use of 
force in order to justify what we are doing. And we have to ask: Is 
this moral? Is this an appropriate case to use violence?
  Because if it is not an appropriate case to use violence for 
something, there is kind of a problem with putting government into the 
equation, because ultimately you have to rely on government to be 
willing to threaten violence and carry out violence; meaning to show up 
at somebody's house with a summons, an arrest warrant, or something 
like that and take them away.
  All that involves force. And again, mercifully, most of the time it 
doesn't have to come to that. Most of the time, Americans, you know, 
comply with the law just because it is a good thing to comply with the 
law.
  But we really should ask the question whether a government action is 
morally justified in any circumstance to such a degree that the use of 
violence would be warranted if it came to that.
  I struggle to accept the proposition that it is OK to use violence to 
force someone to get a COVID-19 vaccine. As

[[Page S8422]]

much as I love the fact that the vaccines are available and are a real 
blessing--something of a modern medical miracle--I can't get 
comfortable with the idea of using violence to force people, who have 
another opinion, to comply.
  It seems morally problematic and morally unjustified--for that 
matter, indefensible--for the government to tell someone, ``If you 
don't get this shot, you will get fired;'' and, in fact, to tell their 
employer, ``You must fire this person if this person doesn't get the 
vaccine, even if this person has a good-faith religious belief against 
it, even if this person has natural immunity or has some particular 
medical condition causing his or her board-certified medical doctor to 
advise against receiving the jab.''

  That isn't moral to say to that person, ``You didn't comply with a 
Presidential medical edict, so you are fired;'' and to tell the 
employer, ``If you don't fire that person, you are going to be the 
subject of punitive fines that will cripple any business.''
  And I literally mean any business. I don't think there is a business 
in America subject to these mandates that could survive the crippling, 
deliberately cruel fines that are levied under them--not a one.
  This isn't right. It is not moral. Deep down we know it.
  In fact, according to a recent poll conducted and reported by Axios--
hardly a rightwing publication--it involved a question, and the poll 
question was something along the lines of: Should a person who declines 
to be vaccinated be fired for not being vaccinated?
  And 14 percent agreed that that is OK--14 percent. Only 14 out of 100 
Americans said: Yeah, that makes sense, that is OK; fire this person, 
fire him, fire her. They don't matter.
  It is compounded when you look at the tragedies imposed by the 
individual circumstances. The soldier; the sailor; the airman; the 
marine; the TSA worker; the Federal contractor; the employee of a 
subcontractor of a company with one Federal contract who does mostly 
non-Federal work; the mom, the dad working in a factory, in a school, 
in a floral shop--if any of those either have a Federal contract or 
have more than 99 employees, all of those people are having their 
livelihoods threatened.
  It is not just a job. It is, in many cases--as is the case in the 
healthcare industry, for example--people who have spent a lifetime 
acquiring the skills and professional certifications, the degrees, the 
training, the education necessary in order to participate in that 
profession.
  Many of these people, by the way, throughout the darkest hours of the 
pandemic, were the people working hardest to protect Americans, to make 
sure they had access to the healthcare they needed.
  Those same people are now being told: You are not good enough. You 
don't deserve a job. You are going to be fired, even if you have a 
medical condition that precludes it.
  Even if this could be morally justified, which it can't, one must ask 
the question asked by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: 
Does Congress, does the Federal Government, have the power to order 
such a widespread vaccine mandate?
  It doesn't.
  The OSHA mandate, for example, constitutionally, it would have to be 
predicated on Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause, which 
gives us the power to regulate trade or commerce between the States, 
with foreign nations, and with the Indian Tribes.
  Even as that provision of the Constitution has been interpreted 
really broadly since 1937--even under that broad interpretation, one 
that has seen only three acts of Congress over the last 84 years being 
deemed outside of Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause--when 
you have to almost try hard to pass legislation predicated on Commerce 
Clause authority that doesn't fall within it, but even under that, this 
doesn't pass the test.
  It is not, by its nature, economic activity. In fact, it is not 
activity. You are punishing nonactivity.
  Even under these high watermark precedents from the New Deal era 
establishing a very deferential standard of review for exercises of 
Commerce Clause authority by Congress, this doesn't even pass that. And 
even if it did, which it doesn't, you would still have to identify the 
case of the OSHA mandate a definable delegation of authority from 
Commerce using some intelligible principle authorizing this kind of 
action.
  You will not find that. It is not there. I have reviewed upside down, 
sideways, backwards, forwards the statutory text at issue with regard 
to OSHA. It does not provide this authority. The moral authority is 
lacking. The constitutional authority is lacking. There is no power 
delegated by the Congress to OSHA to do this. It is not defensible.
  I am glad that delays on some of these mandates have been imposed. I 
am glad that OSHA is at least agreeing to comply with the order of the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; and, at least for the 
duration of that litigation, enforcement will be halted.
  I hope and I fully expect that the ultimate resolution of that case 
will be consistent with what the Fifth Circuit ruled last week. In 
fact, I have little doubt that it will be.
  This is, in some ways, the most brazen act of Presidential overreach 
that we have seen in a single directive, since President Harry Truman, 
on April 8, 1952, issued an order seizing every steel mill in the 
United States for steel production related to the Korean war effort. 
Mercifully, the U.S. Supreme Court was able to intervene and, within a 
couple of months, invalidated that action.
  This one is even clearer than that; but, more importantly, this one 
is more emotionally compelling than that.
  That unconstitutional act of Presidential overreach affected a 
handful of steel companies. It certainly affected thousands upon 
thousands of workers. It didn't have the ability to affect directly or 
indirectly every single man, woman, and child in America. This one 
does.
  That is one of the reasons why these moral and statutory and 
constitutional questions matter so much. That is why I have been coming 
to the floor every day, and why I will continue to do so indefinitely 
as long as it takes.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Van Hollen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning 
business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Native American Heritage Month

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Native 
American Heritage Month. As a Senator from Washington State, I am proud 
to represent 29 federally recognized Tribes.
  In Washington, we understand the importance of the sovereignty of 
Tribal Governments. And anyone who knows me knows, I believe a 
commitment is more than just words. It is about action.
  At the start of this year, when we passed the American Rescue Plan to 
get America up and running again, it was the single largest Federal 
investment in Tribes ever--more than $32 billion for Tribal Nations.
  Since then, I have spoken to many Tribal leaders in Washington State 
about what this has meant for our Tribal communities.
  A housing grant to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe helped provide homes 
for an additional 25 families.
  The Lummi Nation created new opportunities for education and job 
retraining.
  The American Rescue Plan helped the Tulalip keep Tulalip-owned 
businesses, who have been struggling since the pandemic, afloat.
  Action on our commitment has helped Tribal members in my home State 
stay housed, get back to work, keep their small businesses open, and 
continues to make a difference in a thousand different ways.
  Now, these outcomes weren't inevitable. They happened because of 
intentional and specific policy decisions this

[[Page S8423]]

Congress made to support Tribal Nations.
  So if we are serious about showing a real commitment to Tribal 
communities during Native American Heritage Month, then we need to 
continue to prioritize Tribal communities in all of our policymaking.
  Infrastructure in Indian Country--everything from roads to bridges, 
to broadband--has been underfunded for too long. The bipartisan 
infrastructure bill, which is now signed into law, will make $13 
billion in direct investments in Indian Country, with tens of billions 
more in Federal grants and future funding opportunities. This will mean 
clean drinking water, access to high-speed internet, transit to connect 
communities, and more.
  Now we have another opportunity to show our commitment to Tribal 
communities with the Build Back Better Act. Just like everywhere else 
in this country, childcare is a crisis for Native communities. Right 
now, about one out of every four Native Americans in this country is 
experiencing poverty. That is higher than any other group. So when 1 in 
10 Native American parents have to quit or change their job because 
they can't find or afford childcare, we are making a tough situation 
worse.
  My childcare proposal in Build Back Better is going to cut the cost 
of childcare by thousands for Tribal families--with many paying nothing 
at all for childcare--and it is going to help get more slots open 
everywhere we need them, so parents won't be stuck on waiting lists for 
months on end.
  It is our government's duty to make investments like this one in 
Indian Country because if we really believe in Tribal sovereignty and 
acknowledging the role our government has played in centuries of 
persecution Native peoples in this country have faced, we must also 
take action to create real opportunity for people; action on quality, 
affordable childcare, housing, home care, and more.
  Build Back Better is going to make a big difference for Native 
communities, but there is more we need to do to address the specific 
needs of Native communities.
  We have to build on President Biden's Executive action to address the 
epidemic of missing or murdered indigenous peoples, especially to 
protect Native women and girls. We must reauthorize the Violence 
Against Women Act and strengthen that legislation to empower Tribal 
Nations to hold perpetrators of crimes committed on Tribal lands 
accountable. And living up to our commitments is also about 
representation and a seat at the table.
  I was overjoyed to strongly support the confirmation of Deb Haaland, 
who is already blazing a trail as a historic Secretary of the Interior 
and a powerful voice for Tribal interests.
  I was proud to recommend Lauren King, a citizen of the Muscogee 
Nation and a Tribal law expert to serve a lifetime appointment as a 
Federal court judge in Washington State--the first Native American 
Federal judge in my State's history and just the sixth ever in American 
history. And I am glad to see more than 50 Native Americans serving in 
key political positions throughout the Biden administration. I look 
forward to seeing many more.
  So, on this Native American Heritage Month, let's resolve to build on 
the important work this Congress has done so far to support our Native 
communities.
  As a voice for Washington State Tribes in the U.S. Senate, I will 
always advocate for Indian Country and fight to ensure the Federal 
Government lives up to its sacred commitment to indigenous people 
across the country.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Child Tax Credit

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this week, for the fifth month in a row--
and the Presiding Officer has been standing with us on this important 
issue--parents in Ohio and Maryland and all over the country, once 
again, see $250 or $300 or, if they have two children, $600 in tax cuts 
directly into their bank accounts.
  Think about this: 90 percent of Ohio children, this year, will have 
at least a $3,000 tax cut, not a deduction. This is real money in 
people's pockets. This is 90 percent of Ohio families who will get at 
least a $3,000 tax cut, and that is if they have one child. If they 
have more, they will get a bigger tax cut.
  You know, we know how hard parents work at their jobs and at raising 
their kids. Any parent knows how much work it is to take care of 
children, especially young children. It has gotten only harder and 
harder over the last year and a half.
  I hear some of my colleagues, especially on that side of the aisle, 
say--you know, they forget what hard work it is to raise children. And 
I watched what we were able to do on this with the chairman of the 
Finance Committee, who just walked in, Senator Wyden, and his 
leadership on this largest tax cut for working families in my lifetime.
  So often, we know hard work doesn't pay off. Think about the past few 
decades: The stock market went up; productivity went up; executive 
compensation has been stratospheric; yet, essentially, wages for most 
workers in this country have been flat.
  And you know how expensive it is to raise kids. Healthcare, school 
lunches, diapers, clothes, school supplies, braces, sports' fees, camp 
fees--the list never seems to end. And one of the biggest expenses for 
so many families is childcare. So parents feel like they are stuck. The 
more they work, the more expensive childcare gets.
  One of the reasons that people haven't returned to the workplace as 
much as some academicians or some professors or somebody predicted--it 
is not because we were providing unemployment compensation. That just 
kept them alive. It is because they can't find affordable, accessible, 
safe childcare. So that is why parents feel like they are stuck. It is 
why we passed the child tax credit--as I said, the largest tax cut for 
working families ever. It is about finally, finally making hard work 
pay off so you can keep up with the cost of raising a family.
  One of the joys of this job--and I know that the Senator from Oregon 
and the Senator from Maryland share this because they do things like 
this--is we put on our website: What does the monthly child tax credit 
mean to you?
  We started this in July. We voted on it, on this floor, on March 6. 
Five days later, President Biden signed the law. We all went to talk to 
Secretary Yellen about getting these checks out quickly. On July 15, 4 
months after we voted for it--not even 4. Help me with my math. Three 
months after we voted for it, these checks started showing up.
  In my State, it was 2.1 million checks that went out. There were 2.1 
million individuals who got this child tax credit--you know, a million-
and-some families because, obviously, some have more than one child in 
a family in many cases. Then they got a check on August 15; September 
15; in October; and just this week, on November 15.
  We know it cut the rate of child poverty by 40 percent. We also know 
that it helped families with school expenses or with, maybe, putting a 
little bit of money aside for Bowie State or Stark State, a community 
college in Ohio.
  Maybe it was just a way that families--I mean, we know how there are 
so many families who are really anxious at the end of the month. Maybe 
we don't talk to enough families like this around here, but for 
families who are anxious at the end of the month, getting this $200 or 
$300 or $600 check in the middle of the month relieves the anxiety so 
many families have just to pay the rent because we know so many 
families, in that last week of the month, cut back on food a little 
bit, cut back on trying to figure out a way to get through the month so 
they can pay their rent at the beginning of the next month.
  So, on this website, when we ask people what this means to you, we 
just get the most wonderful stories.
  Lisa said the tax cuts help her afford ``diapers and school supplies 
. . . and [now] we [can] put a little into starting a 529 college 
fund.'' It is so exciting. Now we can finally ``save for education.''
  Lin from Columbus: ``It kicked in right at a time when kid birthdays 
were happening for us, plus back to

[[Page S8424]]

school shopping, and several unexpected vehicle repairs were needed as 
well--it's made a very helpful impact.''
  The Presiding Officer, Senator Van Hollen, sits on the Banking and 
Housing Committee with me. He knows that, before the pandemic, 25 
percent of renters in this country paid more than half of their income 
in rent, and if one thing goes wrong--your car breaks down; you get 
sick; your child gets sick; you miss a few days of work--you can be 
evicted. This will stop that from happening in many cases.
  Jeff from Cincinnati said it helps him afford ``car insurance for a 
17-year-old,'' a 17-year-old who has a part-time job after school.
  The story we hear over and over is how expensive childcare is, how 
parents use this money to afford childcare so they can go back to work 
or, maybe, work more hours than they are working.
  CeCe said her tax cut helps her pay for daycare. ``Daycare is the 
same amount as my mortgage payment for 4 days a week! So this is so, so 
helpful,'' she said.
  Sarah said: ``It has been critical as I started my unpaid maternity 
leave at the end of July.''
  I mean, we want people to be able to give birth and then stay with 
their child, their newborn, for a period of time. Many, many, many 
people in Baltimore, in Cleveland, in Portland don't have any kind of 
leave--and how important it is that they can, maybe, stay a little 
longer with a newborn child and bond with her or him.
  Courtney, from Athens, near the Ohio River, said the CTC is 
``slightly more than half the cost of part time daycare tuition per 
month--much appreciated help getting kiddo back into childcare and 
keeping [my husband and me] in the workforce.''
  These tax cuts mean more parents can afford to work and can afford to 
keep up with the extra cost of raising kids.
  When these tax cuts are fundamentally stripped down from everything 
else, it is about the dignity of work. All work has dignity, whether 
you punch a clock or swipe a badge; whether you work for tips; whether 
you are on salary; whether you are raising children or caring for an 
aging parent. Raising children is work. We never should forget that: 
raising children is work.
  It is a hell of a lot more work than moving money from one overseas 
bank account to another, as this body falls all over itself over the 
years giving tax cuts to rich people.
  It didn't stop Senator McConnell from rewarding the wealthiest CEOs 
and hedge fund managers and Swiss bank account holders. We remember 
what happened. When they did their tax cut 4 years ago, everybody in 
our--I mean, look at the difference. Four years ago, they passed the 
tax cut. You could see the lobbyists lined up in the hall outside 
Senator McConnell's office. Four years ago, we passed the tax cut. 
Almost all Republicans voted yes; almost all Democrats voted no. 
Seventy percent of that tax cut went to the richest 1 percent.
  Earlier this year, we passed the largest tax cut for working families 
everywhere. Everybody on this side voted yes; everybody on that side 
voted no. I mean, whose side are you on? Apparently, we know that. 
Senator McConnell and his crowd--they are always for the billionaires, 
they are always for giving more tax cuts, while Senator Wyden and the 
Finance Committee are fighting for middle-class tax cuts.
  They then promised--and we all heard this--they promised that these 
big tax cuts for billionaires would trickle down, and they would hire 
more people, and they would pay higher wages, and the economy would 
grow. Well, it didn't exactly work that way. They kept so much of it 
for themselves. They spent that money on stock buybacks, and we know 
what happened then.
  So the question is, Do you want tax cuts for billionaires and 
corporations or do you want tax cuts for working families? We want tax 
cuts for working families, and so do Americans from all over the 
country overwhelmingly from all kinds of backgrounds, from Chillicothe 
to Xenia, to Springfield, to Portsmouth, to Ravenna--all over the 
country.
  Every single month now, we are showing parents and workers we are on 
your side. We will not stop fighting to make sure parents' hard work 
pays off for years to come.
  The child tax credit--we will make it permanent. It may not be this 
year, but we will make it permanent. As Senator Wyden has said, it will 
become a lot like Social Security. It will be transformational. 
Americans will love it the way Americans have gotten used to and depend 
on and love Social Security. It is part of who we are as a nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in a few moments, I intend to put forward a 
request for the Senate to take up and approve the nomination of a very 
special Oregonian; that is, my friend Chuck Sams, President Biden's 
choice to lead the extraordinarily important National Park Service. I 
am just going to take a few minutes to talk about Chuck Sams and make 
sure the Senate understands why this is the right person for this very 
important job.
  First of all, I would say to the Senate, we have heard the national 
parks described as America's best idea. That is because they form a 
network of treasures that no other country can match. But the fact is, 
the National Park Service is not only about the views and the photo-
ops; the Director of the National Park Service is in charge of an 
organization of over 22,000 employees and almost a quarter-million 
volunteers. The Park Service generates tens of billions of dollars of 
economic activity. The people of my State, Oregonians from one corner 
of the State to the other, particularly understand how critical outdoor 
treasures are for rural economies and rural jobs.
  There are park units in every State in the Nation--urban parks, rural 
parks, historic American buildings, ancient archeological sites. And 
the personnel at the Park Service--what incredible people. They do it 
all, from education to preservation to maintenance, and they are also 
now doing more resilience against wildfires.
  That is why it is so important we have strong leadership at the 
National Park Service, because when you have employees taking on such 
diversified challenges and you have the Park Service woven into the 
fabric of every State and so many communities, you need somebody at the 
top, the leader, to be capable and ready to take on these enormous 
challenges. Chuck Sams is that person, there is no question about it.
  I want the Senate to know that I have known Chuck Sams for years, and 
I have personally seen in action his dedication to communities and to 
the outdoors. He has been a longtime Umatilla Tribal leader and a key 
member of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, working with 
officials from across our region. He is also a veteran of the U.S. 
Navy. I know Chuck Sams to be a role model in the stewardship of 
America's lands, our waters, our wildlife, and our history.
  The Congress and parkgoers are going to be able to count on him in 
the months and years ahead, after he is confirmed, because we know the 
Park Service faces some very big challenges. There is, for example, a 
multibillion-dollar maintenance backlog. The parks are often very 
crowded. They are confronting the effects of the climate crisis, 
whether it is wildfire, floods, or droughts. The list goes on and on. 
There has been for too long--too long--a workforce culture fraught with 
gender discrimination and harassment.
  For almost 5 years, the Park Service has been without a Senate-
confirmed Director. The reason why I am here is, I would say to the 
Presiding Officer and to my colleagues, I am here to make sure that the 
Senate doesn't wait another single day after 5 years to confirm a 
capable leader, Chuck Sams, as the Director to address these challenges 
I have described. He is the right nominee at the right time. I want 
Senators to know I base this not on reading a bunch of resumes or bios 
about Chuck Sams. I have seen it myself. I have seen Chuck at work in 
our State. He is committed. I support him 110 percent.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: 
Calendar No. 508,

[[Page S8425]]

Charles F. Sams III, of Oregon, to be Director of the National Park 
Service; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate; that no further motions be in order with respect to this 
nomination; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 
action; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to 
commend my colleague from Oregon and his comments. As a matter of fact, 
I don't disagree with pretty much anything he said.
  I had my first good meeting with Mr. Sams this morning, and I would 
agree, I think he is qualified. I am particularly impressed with his 
background as a Native American, as a veteran.
  One thing I like to talk a lot about is how our Alaskan Native 
American populations serve at higher rates in the military than any 
other ethnic group in the country--special patriotism. Mr. Sams 
certainly carries that tradition on quite well.

  And I have already talked to Senator Wyden. I intend to work with him 
and Mr. Sams just on a few more issues, a few more discussions. Again, 
we had a very good conversation this morning.
  This is nothing about his qualifications, but I wanted to make sure 
the administration is aware of some issues, at very high levels, as it 
relates to this position, this job. And, again, I agree with my 
colleague from Oregon; this is an extraordinarily important Federal 
Agency. As a matter of fact, it is so important for my State that I 
want to explain a little bit to my colleagues, many of whom don't 
really know what the National Park Service does. But to my State, it is 
enormously important; it is powerful; and it can touch on people's 
lives in huge ways.
  Let me just give you a little bit of the numbers. The Federal 
Government manages roughly 66 percent of the lands in Alaska. Of that, 
the Park Service controls 55 million acres. Two-thirds of all National 
Park Service land--two-thirds of the land that Mr. Sams will be in 
charge of is in my State. A lot of people don't recognize that. A lot 
of people don't understand that. Alaskans understand that--two-thirds.
  So he is one of the big, important landlords of the great State of 
Alaska. And, as you can imagine, this Agency has outsized influence in 
Alaska beyond what these numbers represent--for hunting, for fishing, 
for transportation, for culture, and for people's livelihoods.
  And this has been an Agency, to be quite frank, that has been abusing 
its power in Alaska for decades--Democrat administrations and 
Republican administrations.
  In 1980, this body passed the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act--what we call in Alaska ANILCA. The Congress took 100 
million acres of Alaska lands. We weren't supportive, by the way, 
Alaska--100 million acres. That is bigger than almost any State 
represented in the U.S. Senate, bigger than two Minnesotas.
  And a huge part of ANILCA laid out how the National Park Service 
would interact with Alaskans. For decades, Alaskans were saying that 
the way in which the National Park Service was treating Alaskans--by 
the way, Alaska Natives in particular--was not according to the law, 
was not according to ANILCA.
  And it wasn't just Alaskans saying this. In the last 4 years, there 
have been two U.S. Supreme Court decisions--they are referred to as the 
``Sturgeon'' decisions--where an Alaskan who wanted to go hunting sued 
the National Park Service, and it went all the way to the Supreme 
Court. And the U.S. Supreme Court twice in the last 4 years, 9 to 0--9 
to 0--agreed with Alaskans that the National Park Service was not 
following the law as it related to ANILCA.
  As Justice Kagan, who wrote one of the opinions, said, ``Alaska is 
often the exception, not the rule'' to issues relating to Federal lands 
and access.
  Now, as you can imagine, the National Park Service did not like 
getting slammed by the U.S. Supreme Court twice 9-zip, but we liked it. 
It was a vindication of what Alaskans, for decades, have been saying 
about the abuse of power of the National Park Service.
  So I want to work with Senator Wyden and Mr. Sams on further 
conversations, soon--we are not trying to block this; I know the 
National Park Service needs leadership, and I think he would be a good 
leader--but to look at making sure the implementation of these two U.S. 
Supreme Court decisions, 9 to 0, are followed through by the entire 
bureaucracy. It is not much to ask.
  These are topics I raised with Mr. Sams today. He seemed to be in 
agreement with me. But these issues are enormously important to the 
people I represent.
  And I am going to mention one final thing, and it is not really in 
Mr. Sams' area of expertise, but I mentioned this to him as well.
  All Americans have been experiencing economic, pandemic-related pain 
over the last 20 months. My State, I think, has been hit as hard as any 
other State, particularly on the economic side. And I want to just 
raise this topic right now because I am going to come down on the 
Senate floor and talk about it a lot more here. But it relates to some 
of these issues.
  This administration, the Biden administration, in the last 10 months, 
has issued 19 Executive orders or Executive actions solely focused on 
my State--19. There is no other State in the country--not Maryland, not 
Oregon, no other State in the country--that is getting this kind of 
attention from the new administration, and it is attention that we 
don't want because almost every one of these Executive orders and 
Executive actions is hurting working families, is hurting our economy, 
is hurting access to our lands at a time when we are already hurting.
  I just want to ask my colleagues, respectfully, especially on the 
other side of the aisle, could you imagine a Republican administration 
coming in and saying, ``We are going to issue 19 Executive orders and 
actions targeting Maryland or Delaware or Oregon or Massachusetts''? 
Senators would be on the floor, rightfully, sticking up for their State 
and their fellow citizens.
  This is a challenging time right now. Working families are hurting 
with inflation, high energy costs, and we have an administration in the 
White House that thinks it is fine to target the great State of Alaska. 
Well, it is not fine. It is not fine. It is a war on working families 
in my State, and I would hope all of my colleagues would recognize that 
this isn't appropriate. This isn't appropriate.
  And it is not just these actions. The White House has made it known 
that it has gone to financial institutions throughout the country--
banks, insurance companies--saying: Don't invest in American energy 
projects in the Arctic--also known as Alaska.
  So I am not going to hold this against Mr. Sams. My colleague from 
Oregon I have a lot of respect for. But, literally, every major project 
that is resource development, employs people, helps working families--
by the way, there are some that aren't economic. There is a law that we 
passed in the U.S. Senate 3 years ago to help Alaska Native Vietnam 
veterans. It was my bill. I care deeply about these great warriors who 
were really screwed by their country when they came home from Vietnam.
  The administration has delayed the implementation of that bill for 2 
years. There will be Vietnam veterans--Alaska Native Vietnam vets--in 
my State who will die before they get the benefit because they just 
thought they could do another hit on Alaska.
  So I ask my colleagues to just put yourself in my State's position. 
None of you would accept that. And I am going to start talking about 
it, and I am going to start raising these issues. And I hope I can get 
some of my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--to maybe reach out to 
the White House, going: Hey, this really isn't appropriate. Alaska has 
had a rough time. Everybody has had a rough time in America, but 
really? Nineteen Executive orders and actions?
  These are just the Alaska-specific ones. There are broader Federal 
ones that impact us too. But I want to work with Senator Wyden. I want 
to work with Mr. Sams, particularly on that issue I raised earlier. I 
think he is

[[Page S8426]]

going to be very well qualified. I admire his desire to serve, his 
background, and especially his Navy background.
  And I intend to lift my hold very soon, but right now I am objecting. 
But my goal would be to have this nominee, who is qualified, after 
further discussions with me and Senator Wyden, moved to be confirmed by 
the U.S. Senate. But, for now, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I just want to tell the Senate where we are 
now and what is ahead.
  I have asked unanimous consent to confirm an Oregonian whom I have 
watched in action, Chuck Sams, to head the National Park Service, which 
has gone leaderless for 5 full years.
  Now, my colleague has said, to his credit, that Chuck Sams is very 
well qualified, that he is a good man, that he had good discussions 
with him. And I would just say to the Senate and my colleague--my 
colleague and I have worked together often here in the Senate. I 
remember, as chairman of the Finance Committee, we had some issues on 
the budget. And we got together, and within 20 minutes we had it worked 
out.
  So I would just say to my colleague, I am ready from this minute on 
to get together with you, to get together with Mr. Sams. We are going 
to be here, it sounds like, at least today, and then we will have to 
see.
  But I just hope we can work this out because I listened to the 
Senator very carefully. And I have been to Alaska. I went with your 
colleague Senator Murkowski when I was chairman of the Energy 
Committee. And I heard my colleague's concerns.
  Well, to get those kind of concerns addressed--many of them--you have 
got to have a Director; you have got to have somebody you can hold 
accountable, somebody you can get on the phone and you can talk to 
about issues. Chuck Sams is exactly that kind of person.
  So I want my colleague to know we are going to be here the rest of 
today and, it sounds like, some of tomorrow, but we will have to see. I 
hope that we can get this worked out, and I want to pledge to my 
colleague that I will, myself, be willing to work with him on issues he 
has with the State, just the way we did on those tax concerns with 
respect to the budget. And let's see if we can get this done before we 
leave this week because the longer we wait--I mean, just think of the 
Park Service here over the holiday. There are going to be a lot of 
people--because the Park Service is part of the treasures of America--
who are going to want to enjoy those facilities.
  So this has real-world consequences. I look forward to working with 
my colleague, and I hope--I hope--we can get this done before we leave, 
and I pledge to my colleague that I will work with him to respond to 
his concerns not just about this nominee in the context of this nominee 
but in the context of the concerns he has for his State.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from 
Oregon, and I will commit to working with him to try and get this done 
before we head out to recess.
  We know the treasures of Alaska. As I mentioned, two-thirds of all 
the Park Service in the country is in my State, which is why I want to 
make sure I am having followup conversations--I had a good one already 
with Mr. Sams--to get commitments on a few additional issues that 
matter deeply not just to the Park Service and for America but, really, 
to my State. But you have my commitment to work with you and Mr. Sams 
on a few more of these issues.
  And, if I may, for all my colleagues, right--and I am glad to hear 
Senator Wyden mention this--this shouldn't be happening with one State. 
There is a Biden White House war on the State of Alaska. No one is 
getting treatment like this, and it shouldn't be this way. If a 
Republican President were in attacking Maryland or Oregon like that, I 
would call the White House going: Hey, lay off, guys. Lay off.
  So I sure hope some of my colleagues--Republican and Democrats--can 
send the message to Joe Biden, the President, that you know, the war on 
working families in Alaska is not really a good idea. They are 
Americans, too, and they have got a lot of resources to produce for our 
great Nation, which we need right now.
  So with that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, on September 9, President Biden told the 
American people that he was losing patience with them and they needed 
to get vaccinated right now. He laid down a series of Executive orders 
on Federal employees, on Federal contractors, on companies that had--
individuals that had 100 employees or more, on individuals that worked 
in any healthcare-related, anything that dealt with Medicare or 
Medicaid. It reached out to millions of people.
  He set a date that was within 3 months, knowing full well it would 
take months to actually write the rule and it would create chaos across 
the country as everyone tried to figure out how to do this mandate.
  I fully believe that was the purpose of setting a close deadline; it 
was because it would have that much chaos in the country dealing with 
the vaccine mandates. Well, mission accomplished. It has created chaos 
across our economy and across lots of families.
  What is the situation right now in America dealing with COVID?
  We are on the backside of our second peak. We have seen hundreds of 
thousands of people lose their lives to COVID. We have seen hospitals 
fill, get back to order; fill again, get back to order.
  But in the meantime, three vaccines have been developed, multiple 
different treatments have been developed, a multitude of tests have 
been developed, which has been the primary issue that we have every 
year with the flu.
  We don't panic every year on the flu because we have testing. We have 
treatment. We have vaccines. We now have, for COVID, testing, 
treatments, and vaccines. It becomes much more manageable.
  In the meantime, right at 80 percent of all Americans who are 12 
years old or over have already had at least one dose of one of the 
vaccines.
  Let me run that past you again: 80 percent of Americans have had at 
least one dose of one of the three vaccines, of those 12 years old or 
older.
  About 45 million Americans have recovered from COVID; had it, tested 
positive, and have recovered. The vast majority of Americans, by far--
like, not even close--the vast majority of Americans have been 
vaccinated or have recovered from COVID or both.
  But is the administration OK with that?
  No, they are not. The administration has laid down their own law to 
say, if Americans do not get the vaccine--those 20 percent left that 
haven't gotten the vaccine that are 12 years old or older, if they 
don't get the vaccine, this administration is going to find some way 
for them to lose their job; which, for many people, will also mean lose 
their insurance; lose their pension; and, sometimes, lose their home.
  But the President's response is: I don't care. Go get the shot. That 
is what I want you to do.
  Well, Mr. President, mission accomplished.
  Let me tell you a story of an individual that works in the eastern 
part of my State, who works for one of those companies that is 100 
people or more. He didn't want to have the vaccine. The reason is not 
even important, but he said he didn't want to take the vaccine. So what 
happened in his company of 100 or more? They fired him a couple of 
weeks ago.
  You are welcome, Mr. President. Thanks for firing him.
  Oh, it gets better. He lost his house because he couldn't pay the 
mortgage, and this adult man has now moved in with his family while he 
tries to figure out what happens next for him.
  Do you know why?
  Because the President said he was losing patience and he didn't care 
if this guy lost his house, lost his job, lost his insurance. The 
President was just saying, go get it, or else.
  Well, thanks. Right before Thanksgiving, he is experiencing the ``or 
else.''
  One of my constituent's husband is facing termination. He is from 
another one of those large companies. He has worked for them for 30 
years. He has a

[[Page S8427]]

secret clearance from the DOD. And his doctor gave him an exemption 
because his cardiac numbers fluctuate so much. And he is one of those 
high-risk individuals for blood clots, which can be a side effect of 
the vaccines. So his doctor has encouraged him not to take the vaccine.
  So he went into his job. He asked for the medical exemption, and he 
was given two forms to sign. The first of the forms said he had to 
agree to take the vaccination or he would lose his job. The second form 
agreed that, if he took the vaccination, he would not sue the company 
if he had a negative reaction.
  So here is a man who has to choose between taking the vaccine, 
knowing that his doctor has told him not to do it, and if he does take 
it, if he has a negative reaction, the company wants to be held 
harmless for it. And he has to sign a document saying the company will 
be held harmless for it or lose his job.
  Do you know why?
  Because President Biden said he was losing patience.
  So this family gets to sit around over Thanksgiving not talking about 
football but talking about whether he is going to lose his job or 
possibly have a blood clot in the hospital.
  Which would you like to have that conversation on over Thanksgiving?
  There is a company that does electrical engineering that also has one 
of those Federal contracts they talk about. Some of the employees don't 
do the Federal contracting. They work for other issues. Fifty people of 
the 250 in the company have said they don't want to take the vaccine, 
and so they are in the process of losing their jobs. And that company 
will not be able to fulfill its Federal contract because hiring 50 more 
electricians is not that simple right now with the economy that we are 
currently in.
  A constituent told us that her employer is going to lay her off on 
December 8 because she hasn't had the vaccine yet. So she will spend 
Thanksgiving discussing this with her family as she approaches the time 
where she is about to be laid off. She works in one of those companies 
that has a Federal contract. She reached out to her primary care 
doctor, who is at the VA, by the way, and the VA instructed her that 
they are not writing exemptions for medical exemptions.
  She is on her own.
  Why?
  Because the President is losing patience, and he has decided he is 
going to throw all of these families in chaos or they are going to lose 
their job, because he said so.
  Why have I been fighting this mandate since September 9 when the 
President actually announced it?
  Because it was obvious to me what was coming. It was this.
  Everyone could see it, apparently, but the White House. Americans are 
stubborn people. That is what has made us the most prosperous, freest 
people in the world. We are entrepreneurs. We take risks. We understand 
the consequences for our risks. But we also go do because we can; we 
are Americans.
  And now the President of the United States has announced: I don't 
care; you are going to get this, or else.
  So what is the real effect of this? All of this chaos?
  Oh, this is just part of it. There is a whole lot more.
  How about the EMS folks that are in rural Oklahoma, that are having a 
hard time actually keeping some of their drivers and folks in because 
they have chosen not to take the vaccine?
  What happens in 3 weeks from now when people get sick at their house 
or have a heart attack and EMS can't respond because those folks got 
fired from their jobs because the President said, I am losing patience? 
What happens?
  I will tell you what happens. People die. Other families are going to 
struggle through this process as they are figuring out where they are 
going to go to work because they lost their career, because the 
President said: I have lost patience with you.
  Tell me this: For the person that is the JAG officer in the military, 
works in the National Guard, and for whatever reason--whether it is a 
religious accommodation, medical accommodation, or whatever it might 
be--they chose not to take this vaccine, when they get a dishonorable 
discharge, what happens to them?
  They lose their law license is what happens to them. They are 
disbarred, and they are no longer practicing their profession.
  What happens to the State trooper in Oklahoma that also serves on our 
National Guard?
  When they get dishonorably discharged, they don't just lose their 
military career; they lose their civilian career.
  What happens to the nurse or doctor that serves with the National 
Guard? When they get drummed out, what happens?
  They lose their military career and their civilian career. That is 
what happens.
  Do you know why?
  Because the President decided he was losing patience with the 
American people and they have to do what he says to do, not what they 
want to do. That is why all this chaos is happening.
  I heard from a constituent, 28 years of Federal service--28 years of 
Federal service. I am not going to give the administration that they 
work in, but they work behind the scenes in an exceptionally important, 
exceptionally difficult task--serving their neighbors as a Federal 
employee. She doesn't want to retire, but she doesn't want to take this 
vaccine either.
  So do you know what she is doing?
  She is retiring.
  And what is going to happen in this agency in Oklahoma when they lose 
this cornerstone person at this Agency?
  They will struggle to figure out what she did, how she did it. And 
people in Oklahoma will get less help in that Agency because a long-
term, vital civil servant is about to get run out of civil service 
because President Biden decided he lost patience with her.
  That wasn't in her civil service contract. That was never negotiated 
with any other collective bargaining rights agreements, never. There is 
no addition in any collective bargaining rights agreements for Federal 
employees that they have to get a vaccine mandate if the President 
decides that they do, but he decided--that is, President Biden 
decided--he was going to take this on.
  And so she is going to be discussing over Thanksgiving what she is 
going to do post-retirement, wishing that she could stay a little 
longer to be able to build up a few more years, and thought she was 
going to be able to, but, instead, she got ran out because she and the 
President had a difference of opinion about a brandnew vaccine.
  Now, I have said to this group before several times--and I will say 
it again--I have had the vaccine. I encourage others to take the 
vaccine. Eighty percent of Americans who are 12 years old or older have 
had the vaccine.
  There are plenty of Americans who have had the vaccine who support 
the vaccine but do not want their next door neighbor to get fired 
because they disagree on the vaccine. In fact, I don't know a lot of 
people who do, though I have met some that are just that heartless to 
be able to say: I don't care what you think. I want to feel better 
forcing you to go get the vaccine.
  I have met some of those folks, but I don't meet many of them. Most 
of them say: I freely made the decision; they should be able to freely 
make the decision, as well.
  But apparently that is not where the President is and, unfortunately, 
that is not where some of my Democratic colleagues are because multiple 
times we have brought an end to the vaccine mandates to multiple 
committees in multiple places over the last several months and it gets 
knocked down every time.
  Just this week, we filed a Congressional Review Act dealing with just 
the OSHA piece. We have another one coming dealing with all those on 
CMS to make a simple statement: We have got to stop this vaccine 
mandate. It is causing chaos in our families. It is causing chaos in 
our economy, and anyone who doesn't think it is is not talking to 
people at home.
  So we will bring this in the next 18 days to the floor of this 
Senate, and we will force a vote on it and put everyone on record: Do 
you stand with the American people, who strongly affirm the vaccine but 
strongly oppose the mandate, or will you be one to say: I don't care. I 
stand with the President. I am losing patience with people, this 20 
percent that haven't done the vaccine. I

[[Page S8428]]

am losing patience with them, and I am just going to force them to do 
it, as well--because that decision is coming to every single person in 
this body.
  This could be turned off right now, and one section of it already is 
turned off. The Fifth Circuit Court reached in on the issue of private 
employers and said that this was way overly broad of the President. No 
kidding. It was unconstitutional for the President to reach into 
companies and to say: I don't care who it is, how important they are to 
the company. If you don't make them do the vaccine, you have to fire 
them.
  The Fifth Circuit said you cannot do that. Thank you, Fifth Circuit, 
for finally joining in on that.
  OSHA has now said that they are not going to enforce that, but there 
are lots of other companies that have done it anyway. And, I will tell 
you, for this individual in Eastern Oklahoma who has already been fired 
and lost his house, it is too late for him for suddenly the Biden team 
to say: Just kidding. We are going to pull that back. His life has 
already been wrecked by you.
  What else is happening? I have reached out to multiple different 
Agencies to be able to talk this through. It has been fascinating to 
me, when I have talked to different Agencies. By the way, the Federal 
Agency mandate for all Federal employees is next week to be able to 
have that done. But when I talk to leaders of Agencies of multiple 
different Departments across this town, none of them seem to know how 
many of their employees have actually been vaccinated yet--none of 
them. They all say: Well, we think it is quite a few.
  I say: How many folks have not been vaccinated?
  We have x number of folks who have been reported to us, but they 
don't seem to know. It has become chaotic.
  For Federal workers, their unions have finally stepped in--finally. I 
have been shocked at how slow the Federal unions were to this. They 
finally stepped up and asked for an extension of the President to say: 
Don't put the mandate down for next week. Give people more time 
because, literally, people are sitting around over Thanksgiving 
deciding whether they are going to keep their job or not.
  And if 10 to 20 percent of the workforce across the Federal workforce 
leaves, we are in such chaos that there is no way we will be able to 
finish serving people as we desperately need to be able to do across 
the Federal Government.
  What would I recommend? I had some very frank conversations with the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or the EEOC. It was 
interesting to me, when I visited with the EEOC. That is the group that 
protects workers--Federal workers or private--from discrimination and 
protects workers from inappropriate termination. When I talk to the 
EEOC, what I hear from them is that they weren't consulted through the 
process of developing this new vaccine mandate and all the exemptions 
that should be in place.
  Can I just tell the workers of my State and the workers across the 
country a simple thing? If your employer will not accept your religious 
accommodation that you put in or your medical exemption that you put 
in--if they do not accept those--you need to go to the EEOC and file a 
complaint because the EEOC has rules about terminations that are 
inappropriate terminations. If individuals are being terminated from 
private companies, even if they are Federal contractors or Federal 
employees, I encourage you to go to the EEOC and file a complaint if 
they are not hearing your medical accommodation or your religious 
accommodation. That is your right as an American.
  When the President of the United States is running over your rights, 
you have every right to be able to appeal that personally. You don't 
have to hire an attorney. You can file that complaint on your own to be 
able to make sure that your employer knows that you are filing an EEOC 
complaint against them for inappropriate termination, for not accepting 
your medical exemption and your religious accommodation.
  Interestingly enough, when I approached the Office of Management and 
Budget a month ago about how they are going to handle religious 
accommodation, they said: It is not the business of Federal workers to 
decide and individuals' faith. We are just going to accept that.
  But when the document came out, there was a six-part test of whether 
you are religious enough to be able to turn down the vaccine. They 
literally created a six-part test that every supervisor can go through 
and check to determine if you are religious enough to be able to turn 
this down.
  This would be the first time that I know of that the Federal 
Government has actually reached into an entity, to individuals, and 
said: We are going to decide for you how religious you are.
  That is how crazy this has become.
  I encourage you, again, if individuals have said that you are not 
religious enough to be able to ask for this accommodation, go to the 
EEOC, file a complaint against your employer--whether that be a Federal 
Agency, whether that be a private entity--and make sure that they are 
well aware of what is going on.
  If you work in a Federal Agency and you have an initial appeals 
process that actually goes through, go through that. Go through that 
process. But if you are denied or not heard, you do have rights as an 
American, and I would encourage you to be able to stand up for your 
rights as an American against unjust hiring and unjust firing in this 
process.
  Let me read this last letter to you. As we have fought through this 
process and find every leverage point I can find for the people in my 
State to be able to make their own decisions, it has been difficult to 
be able to talk to people in the struggles that they have.
  Let me read one. This gentleman wrote to me:

       I retired after 20 years of Active-Duty service in the 
     military to enjoy time with my family and the supreme 
     blessings of freedom and peace our country has secured at the 
     expense beyond human measure. Now, many of our undaunted 
     servicemembers and veterans alike face possible unemployment 
     because we refuse to take a vaccine. Some are being coerced 
     into taking it because they can't support their families 
     while unemployed. The very people who risked their lives and 
     the well-being of their children face persecution for a 
     personal medical choice.

  His comment to me: This is not American.
  I agree. That is why we are fighting this. That is why we are 
continuing to push this. That is why we are bringing a Congressional 
Review Act up to put every single person in this body on record: Do you 
support forcing people to take a vaccine or be fired, or not?
  I do not, and I hope that 99 other of my colleagues also do not.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from Kansas.


                      Nomination of Saule Omarova

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I rise today to express my opposition to 
President Biden's nominee to be Comptroller of the Currency, Dr. Saule 
Omarova.
  Although not the most publicly known office, the Comptroller of the 
Currency is a prominent and influential position that regulates and 
supervises all national banks. Given the undeniable importance of this 
office to the economy and to Americans, it has long been kept free of 
divisive politics and extreme views.
  While I talk about the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and 
I talk about banks, my concerns are certainly more than just the 
financial institutions that are in our country's economy. It is the 
people, their customers who are served, that bother me or worry me the 
most.
  Rather than offer practical ideas for strengthening our Nation's 
banks, Dr. Omarova advocates for the elimination of all commercial 
banks--the very financial institutions she should be interested in 
partnering with. Instead, she wishes to replace them with one bank--one 
bank--the Federal Reserve.
  While the Comptroller might not have direct control of the Federal 
Reserve's structure, the reach of the position cannot be understated. 
The Office of the Comptroller is a member of the Federal Financial 
Institutions Examination Council, the Financial Stability Oversight 
Council, and even the Board of the FDIC, an Agency Dr. Omarova hopes to 
eliminate.
  Although the doctor claims to support community banks, her plan would 
relegate them to mere franchises of the

[[Page S8429]]

larger Federal Reserve, and her comments have alarmed many Kansas 
community bankers. They have grave concerns about her policies that 
would ``end banking as we know it.''
  One Kansas banker says:

       I have severe concerns with the President's nominee to be 
     the Comptroller of the Currency. Her support of moving the 
     payment system entirely through the Federal Reserve and her 
     commentary in favor of abolishing the FDIC moves the entire 
     banking system toward a government-controlled financial 
     system. Eliminating the dual banking system would be 
     disastrous for entrepreneurs and consumers alike in the 
     marketplace.

  Another banker from Kansas said:

       We expect our regulator to supervise safety and soundness 
     for banks in the system, not to propose and force feed social 
     agenda items to us.

  Local lenders--I certainly know this in the State of Kansas--are the 
cornerstone of many small towns, and the Comptroller should appreciate 
the value that community banking brings, what I call relationship 
banking. They provide crucial lending services for the underbanked 
populations in rural and urban areas alike. Eliminating the one-on-one, 
personal approach that allows community banks to thrive will do 
permanent damage to financial inclusivity and will further push people 
out of the financial system.
  I have often said to my colleagues in Washington, DC, that economic 
development in many places in Kansas is whether or not there is a 
grocery store in town. It didn't take me too long to realize that that 
answer, of whether or not there is a grocery store in town, often 
revolves around whether or not there is a community bank--a 
relationship bank--in town, one that makes decisions, certainly, on the 
wellness and the ability of the loan to be paid, but what is in the 
best interest of the community? How can I make my community and my 
customers better off for the way this bank operates?
  Another Kansas banker noted it appears that Dr. Omarova is 
comfortable with a banking model ``that lacks luster and the agility to 
serve the diverse nature of the American banking industry.''
  With a banking model that would provide no incentive to create 
innovative new products, consumers would no longer benefit from the 
financial modernization that has brought so many people into the 
banking sector, so many customers to the banking sector. Consumers are 
best served by a financial system that offers competitively priced 
loans and lets lenders invest back in their local communities.
  We must continuously work to improve our financial sector for 
everyone, but forcing consumers to bank with the government would do so 
much more harm than good. Kansans want less government in their lives, 
not more, as this would be.
  Under Dr. Omarova's proposal, the government would have mandatory 
seats on bank boards and be able to control investments in ``socially 
sub-optimal'' activities, a subjective definition that can be 
interpreted to stifle investment. She believes Federal bureaucrats 
should handpick who gains access to credit--all but ensuring leftist 
ideas would be funded.
  Confirming her to this office would provide Dr. Omarova with ample 
opportunity to deny funding to industries she finds politically 
unfavorable, including bankrupting our domestic energy companies, 
something she spoke about.
  While Dr. Omarova cheers on companies' bankruptcies, jobs disappear, 
families go without income, and that American dream that is so 
important to all of us is crushed.
  Unfortunately, the doctor's confirmation hearing this morning only 
deepened my concerns. Her views have no place in the role of the 
Nation's top bank regulator.
  She is entitled to her views. She is entitled to her radical views 
but not as the Nation's top bank regulator.
  By nominating Dr. Omarova, President Biden looks to fundamentally 
reshape banking from a market-driven industry to a one-size-fits-all 
government entity. The thought of a centrally planned economy and a 
banking system like that is not only unworkable, but it is radical--
radically wrong.
  Even if these ideas are just for the sake of some academic thought, 
Dr. Omarova's suggestions have consequential impacts. This is a very 
powerful position, and we cannot--we would take her views lightly at 
our own risk.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this nominee.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Remembering Sergei Magnitsky

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, 12 years ago this Tuesday, Russian tax 
lawyer Sergei Magnitsky died in Moscow at the hands of prison guards 
who, instead of treating him for the acute illness that his torturous, 
yearlong detention provoked, beat him for over an hour. He was found 
dead in his cell shortly thereafter. His ``crime'' was exposing the 
largest tax fraud in Russian history, perpetrated by government 
officials. He was 37 years old and left a loving family and many 
friends.
  At the Helsinki Commission, which I chair, we had heard of Sergei's 
plight months earlier, and we were saddened and outraged that such a 
promising life had been cut short and that so few expected his 
murderers to be held to any account.
  Impunity for the murder of journalists, activists, opposition 
politicians, and now simply an honest citizen was and remains a 
depressing cliche in Russia under Vladimir Putin's rule, while his 
regime often ruthlessly punishes people for minor infractions of the 
law. For those on the wrong side of the Kremlin, the message is clear 
and chilling. Even the most damning evidence will not suffice to 
convict the guilty, nor will the most exculpatory evidence spare the 
innocent.
  The need for justice in Russia in this specific case has not 
diminished with the passage of time. Moreover, the doubling down on the 
coverup of Sergei's murder and the massive tax heist he exposed 
implicates a wider swath of Russian officials with the guilt of this 
heinous crime. It does not need to be this way, nor is it ever too late 
for a reckoning in this case in the very courtrooms that hosted the 
show trials that ultimately led to Sergei's death.
  As sober as this occasion is, there is reason for hope. Vladimir 
Putin will not rule Russia forever, and every passing day brings us 
closer to that moment when someone new will occupy his post. Who that 
person will be and whether this transition will usher in a Government 
in Russia that respects the rights of its citizens and abides by its 
international commitments remain unclear. I hope it does. A Russian 
Government that returns to the fold of responsible, constructive 
European powers would increase global security, enhance the prosperity 
of its own citizens and trading partners, and bring new vigor to 
tackling complex international challenges such as climate change.
  Sergei's work lives on in his many colleagues and friends who are 
gathering in London this week to celebrate his life and to recognize 
others like him who seek justice and peace in their countries, often 
facing and surmounting seemingly impossible obstacles. All too often, 
they pay a heavy price for their courageous integrity.
  Sergei's heroic legacy is exemplified in the global movement for 
justice sparked by his death and in the raft of Magnitsky laws that 
began in this Chamber and have now spread to over a dozen countries, 
including allies like Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European 
Union. Even as these laws help protect our countries from the 
corrupting taint of blood money and deny abusers the privilege of 
traveling to our shores, they also remind those who suffer human rights 
abuses at the hands of their own governments that we have not forgotten 
them.
  Sergei Magnitsky is a reminder to all of us that one person can make 
a difference. In choosing the truth over lies and sacrifice over 
comfort, Sergei made a difference that will never be forgotten.
  Fifty-five years ago, Senator Robert F. Kennedy addressed the 
National Union of South African Students and spoke about human liberty. 
He spoke about freedom of speech and the right to ``affirm one's 
membership and allegiance to the body politic--to society.'' He also 
spoke about the commensurate

[[Page S8430]]

freedom to be heard, ``to share in the decisions of government which 
shape men's lives.'' He stated that government ``must be limited in its 
power to act against its people so there may be no . . . arbitrary 
imposition of pains or penalties on an ordinary citizen by officials 
high or low.''
  Senator Kennedy went on to say:

       Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve 
     the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends 
     forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a 
     million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples 
     build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of 
     oppression and resistance.

  Sergei Magnitsky stood up for an ideal. He acted to improve the lot 
of others. He struck at injustice. He was and remains a ripple of hope.
  On this sad anniversary of Sergei Magnitsky's murder, let us all 
recommit ourselves to helping those in Russia and around the world who 
seek their rightful share in the governance of their own countries and 
who deserve the confidence of doing so without fear of harm. If we do 
this, Sergei will not have died in vain.
  I am confident that one day there will be a monument in stone and 
bronze to Sergei in his native Russia. Until that day, the law that 
bears his name will serve as his memorial.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________