[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 73 (Tuesday, May 3, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2259-S2266]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, 
 UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
   AND HUMAN SERVICES RELATING TO ``VACCINE AND MASK REQUIREMENTS TO 
        MITIGATE THE SPREAD OF COVID-19 IN HEAD START PROGRAMS''

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume 
legislative session, and the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 360, S.J. Res. 39, with the time until 
4:45 p.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or 
their designees, and that at 4:45 p.m., the joint resolution be read a 
third time, and that the Senate vote on passage of the joint 
resolution, with no intervening action or debate. Further, that upon 
disposition of the joint resolution, the Senate resume executive 
session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the joint resolution by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 39) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of 
     Health and Human Services relating to ``Vaccine and Mask 
     Requirements To Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 in Head Start 
     Programs''.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                                Economy

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk 
about our Nation's economy. On Friday, we saw new inflation numbers, 
and we found inflation remains the worst that it's been in 40 years.
  We also found out that in the first three months of this year, the 
American economy actually shrank.
  Why did it shrink? Well, because of the inflation that is hitting 
hard every family in America. So now we have a terrible situation with 
soaring inflation and a stagnant economy--both at the same time. People 
are paying more and more, and they are getting less and less.
  Now, the last time this happened, was in the 1970s. It was called 
``stagflation.'' Back then, all the liberal economic experts said it 
was impossible, you couldn't have soaring inflation in a stagnant 
economy, but we did. And now here we are 50 years later, same thing 
again.
  This is hitting American families like a sledgehammer, and the people 
are suffering all across this country. Inflation has been so high for 
so long, the experts tell us it might lead to a recession.

[[Page S2260]]

  Now, a recession is when the economy shrinks for six months. We are 
already halfway there. Joe Biden, the other day, said everything was 
fine. He said he was not concerned at all about a recession.
  He said no one is predicting a recession right now.
  Well, that is just not true. Maybe he is not listening, but people 
within his own administration are predicting additional dire economic 
times ahead.
  Look, our economy has underperformed projections in four out of the 
last five quarters since Joe Biden has become President. Joe Biden's 
own Labor Secretary admits a recession is a real likelihood. Last 
month, Deutsche Bank predicted a recession by the end of next year. 
Three days later, the Bank of America told investors inflation shock is 
worsening; interest rate shock is just beginning; and recession shock 
is coming.
  Bank of America went on to say that ``inflation is out of control and 
inflation causes recessions.''
  Last month, Larry Summers pointed out that the United States has 
never had the current inflation rate and the current unemployment rate 
without a recession coming within 2 years.
  Larry Summers went on to say:

       Recession in the next couple of years is more likely than 
     not.

  More likely than not.

       I suspect that is how the consensus will evolve.

  Well, Larry Summers is right. He has been right before. He has been 
right about inflation. This is economics 101. It is also American 
history 101.
  High inflation brings about a change in the Federal Reserve, so they 
raise interest rates, and when they raise interest rates, the economy 
slows down. That is what we are seeing.
  Inflation is the worst it has been in 40 years, and in March the 
Federal Reserve raised rates for the first time in 4 years. The Fed is 
widely expected to raise rates again very soon. It is easy to see where 
this is all going. Joe Biden's inflation will soon lead to Joe Biden's 
recession. Now, maybe Joe Biden is hoping that stagnation will be 
transitory, just like he said of inflation for month after month after 
month after month after month.
  The American people have seen this before. Unlike Joe Biden, the 
American people are concerned about inflation and they are concerned 
about a stagnant economy and they are concerned about a recession.
  Apparently, the President likes to laugh about it. In the last 12 
months, we have seen the highest inflation ever recorded for household 
staples--chicken, lunch meat, baby food. It is hard to get infant 
formula now. There is a shortage of that all across the country. The 
American people are feeling stuck in place. They are very stressed, and 
they feel the squeeze every day.
  One estimate says the typical family will pay $5,200 more this year 
than they did last year just to buy the same things. That is $100 a 
week. This is in addition to the inflation that we suffered last year. 
Add the two together, working families are paying much, much more to 
buy the same things that they bought 2 years ago.
  The truth is painful, and the painful truth is that the average 
American family is poorer today than they were the day that Joe Biden 
took office. People have had to change so much in their lives because 
of this. They have had to change the way they drive, had to change the 
way they shop and eat, had to change the way they live.
  A poll last week found that two out of every three American families 
have had to cut back on spending because of inflation. Half said they 
are struggling to pay rent. Nearly 90 percent of the American people 
said they want Congress to bring down inflation.
  So what have Democrats had to do about this over the last 15 months? 
Well, last week, the Democratic leader said this: He said he wants to 
raise taxes. He said it is the only way to conceivably bring down 
inflation--raising taxes.
  Well, that may be the only way that Chuck Schumer knows, but I would 
just say that is not going to bring down inflation, and it is not going 
to help the economy.
  Prices are up. Interest rates are going up. Now Democrats want taxes 
to go up on top of it. Energy prices are at record highs. You have to 
empty your wallet to fill your tank, and yet Chuck Schumer's answer is 
higher tax rates.
  With a recession ready to hit the country, Democrats want to take 
more money out of the pockets of hard-working people. Well, there is 
not a lot left to take, I would say to the majority leader of the U.S. 
Senate and to the President of the United States.
  It is really no wonder, then, that two out of every three Americans 
disapprove of the way the President of the United States is handling 
the economy. The American people know that Democrats--every one of them 
voted in lockstep with Joe Biden for 15 months. They remember every 
single Democrat in the Senate voted with Joe Biden on his major 
spending bill. The American people remember every Democrat supported 
Joe Biden's economic priorities, which, of course, hurt the economy.
  The results have been disastrous for the American people. We know 
what we need to do. We need to lower costs. We need to reduce these 
burdensome regulations. We need to get back to American energy--
American energy, affordable energy, reliable energy--not going hat in 
hand to people around the world. We do much better if we are American 
energy dominant, selling energy to our friends rather than having to 
buy it from our enemies.
  We have had the strongest economic times in the United States in my 
lifetime prior to the pandemic. We know what brought it to us. It was 
lower taxes, more American energy, limiting regulations. Those are the 
things that make a difference. Those are the things that Joe Biden has 
chosen to ignore.
  The American people are struggling and suffering, and it is about 
time they get an administration focused on their needs, not on the 
needs of an administration which is woefully out of touch with the 
American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, Americans across the country today woke 
up to a rare occurrence in the history of our American democracy.
  The highest Court in our land is preparing to eliminate a federally 
protected constitutional right--a woman's right to choose. I am an 
amateur historian, but I can't think of a precedent in history where 
the Supreme Court has taken away a constitutional right after it has 
been in place for 50 years. Women in America may soon live in a country 
where they have fewer rights than their parents and grandparents.
  Let me be clear. The leak of the majority draft opinion in Dobbs v. 
Jackson Women's Health Organization is a breach of the Court's 
confidential deliberations. But the opinion which--draft opinion, which 
has been authenticated by the Chief Justice, is very real.
  It is a peculiar political event this afternoon. Senator McConnell, 
the Republican leader, who has focused more of his energy and efforts 
on reshaping the Federal judiciary to reflect his political point of 
view, was virtually silent on the issue of this Alito draft opinion on 
the Dobbs case. He couldn't be pinned down as to whether he would 
acknowledge it or even say something good about it. Supposedly, it was 
the answer to his political prayer.
  He went so far in trying to reach this goal as to protect a vacancy 
on the Supreme Court for almost 10 months. Antonin Scalia died while 
Barack Obama was still President, in his last year of his second term, 
and McConnell--Senator McConnell made the argument that he did not have 
the authority, since he was a lameduck President, in Senator 
McConnell's words, to fill the vacancy.
  So the Supreme Court was there with 8 members for 10 months until 
Senator McConnell's political prayer was answered again and Donald 
Trump was elected President and could appoint a Justice of Senator 
McConnell's political liking. So he has been very successful in his 
approach to filling vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court with people who 
agree with his political philosophy.
  Now, one of them, Justice Alito, is about to hand down an opinion 
which eliminates Roe v. Wade, a position which is consistent with 
Senator McConnell's belief that has been stated on the floor many 
times. And yet, when he was asked today whether he was in favor of this 
opinion, he refused to even answer. He wanted to focus on

[[Page S2261]]

who leaked this opinion. Well, of course, that is an important 
question. The Court is working on it right now with the Chief Justice 
turning his U.S. Marshal on the case.
  But he would--Senator McConnell insisted on avoiding even taking a 
position on this draft opinion that has now been spread across America. 
It makes no sense at all.
  Women across America are grappling with the very real concern and, 
yes, you could say fear, that they may lose access to reproductive 
freedom and choice in a matter of weeks. If true, this decision will 
end a 50-year guarantee that reproductive rights are protected by our 
Constitution.
  If this radical decision becomes the law of the land, it would deny 
tens of millions of Americans their bodily autonomy. In an instant, 
abortion would be rendered illegal in more than a dozen States.
  In this land of liberty, the government has no business interfering 
with a woman's right to her own reproductive healthcare. It is her 
right to choose, plain and simple. But for the past several decades, 
the far right has fought relentlessly to eliminate this constitutional 
right. They have waged a harsh campaign to, in some instances, actually 
punish the women seeking abortions.
  Here is what I am describing: In Texas last year, lawmakers passed a 
law that has turned bounty hunters loose on anyone who even helps a 
woman receive an abortion.
  And that Mississippi law that the Court is poised to uphold, it makes 
no exception for women seeking abortion in the case of rape or incest.
  At a certain point, you have to ask: What is the real goal here? 
These restrictive laws won't stop people from getting abortions. We 
know that from history. They only make the procedure dangerously unsafe 
and, in some cases, prohibitively expensive for low-income Americans. 
Women's lives are literally at stake.
  Furthermore, we have hardly begun to reckon with the consequences of 
this decision when it comes to other fundamental liberties.
  I read Justice Alito's draft opinion. It is hard for me to describe 
it in a few words, but when it comes to issues as fundamental as 
privacy and personal choice, Justice Alito takes a pretty harsh point 
of view.
  He acknowledges that cases that are often cited in the name of 
privacy, such as Griswold--I can vaguely remember that before the 
Griswold decision in the 1960s, the decision of selling contraceptives 
was subject to strict State regulation, and in many States, they 
prohibited the sale of any forms of contraception. It is hard for 
America to even believe that, when you see forms of contraception being 
advertised on television these days, but there was a time in the 
fifties and before when State regulations prevailed.

  Griswold v. Connecticut was a Supreme Court case that took a look at 
the regulation in Connecticut and said: It is fundamentally wrong. We 
believe that individuals have a right of privacy to make their own 
decision on contraception.
  That was a privacy right, which I respect. And yet, if you are 
careful and read every single word, you will never find the word 
``privacy'' in the Constitution. The Supreme Court found the right to 
privacy by combining the rights of several other different amendments.
  That wasn't good enough for Justice Alito on the basis of this draft 
opinion we have been given. He said since he can't find the word 
``abortion'' in the Constitution, he doesn't believe there is a right 
to it. And he goes on to compare it to privacy rights, like the one I 
just described in Griswold v. Connecticut, and he said that is just a 
matter of saying privacy is your right to choose your own personal 
lifestyle, or words to that effect.
  Well, it is more than that. It gets down to the fundamentals. And if 
you are going to be making a decision with something as basic as a 
family--a husband and wife deciding how many children and when you will 
have children--it really is one of the most basic things that 
frequently you would define freedom in this country.
  That is not the way Justice Alito defines it in the Dobbs decision. 
If we apply Justice Alito's reasoning behind this draft decision to 
other rights, the implications are staggering. The Supreme Court could 
turn back the clock on a whole host of civil liberties.
  What is next--the return of State bans on contraception? bans on 
same-sex marriage? bans on the permissible conduct of LGBTQ people and 
their different sexual orientation situation? All of that can be on the 
table.
  Now that the Supreme Court has confirmed that this draft opinion is 
authentic, the Members of this Senate cannot delay. We need to hold a 
vote codifying the right to abortion into law. Let's show the American 
people where each Senator stands.
  Senator McConnell ducked the question at a press conference today. I 
still don't understand why. But he can't duck the vote. We are going to 
make sure that there is a vote and that his Members, as well as the 
Senator, have an opportunity to express themselves on the record.
  Will we allow our children to inherit a nation that is less free than 
the one their parents grew up in? That is the question which presents 
itself to this Senate.


                                 USICA

  Mr. President, last month, on the evening of April 5, a drone whizzed 
through the skies of Shanghai, China. The city had been shut down for 
nearly a week following a recent uptick in COVID. China's government 
forced Shanghai's nearly 26 million residents into a strict lockdown. 
Nobody was allowed to leave their home, not even to buy groceries or 
medicine.
  By the evening of April 5, many residents were running out of food. 
Panic was starting to set in. In one housing complex, the residents 
began shouting from their windows, demanding that the government 
provide them with the basics.
  As they shouted, the drone stopped flying and began hovering over 
their housing complex. It blinked a white flashing light as a robotic 
voice issued a command--a command that would send chills down the spine 
of anyone.
  The voice instructed the residents of that Shanghai apartment complex 
to comply with the lockdown and then said: ``Control your soul's desire 
for freedom.''
  As government drones patrol Shanghai's skies, robotic dogs are 
patrolling the city's empty streets, barking commands for citizens to 
``remain civilized.''
  These methods of enforcement and control did not appear out of thin 
air. For years, the Chinese government has poured its treasure and 
talent into developing next-generation technology, like dystopian 
drones, robotic dogs, and the most sophisticated surveillance apparatus 
in the world.
  Technology, of course, by itself is neither good nor bad. The same 
technology can be used to advance freedom and democracy as they use to 
suppress it. For instance, facial recognition technology is built into 
our smart phones to protect our sensitive data. In China, this 
technology is also used to monitor their citizenry and tabulate their 
``social credit scores.''
  The Chinese government also uses artificial intelligence, AI, for the 
troves of data it collects on its own citizens every day, particularly 
on ethnic minorities like the Uighers, against whom the Chinese 
government is committing human rights abuses.
  Scientific and technological innovation are critical to America's 
future economic prosperity and standard of living, but innovation is 
also critical to our national security and to the future of our 
country.
  Who do we want to take the lead in shaping the future, the United 
States or the other democracies of the world or authoritarian states 
like China and Russia?
  China's technological clout is a product of decades of investment. 
This chart shows the annual growth of research and development 
expenditures since 1995. Note that leading the path is China; Korea is 
second, Taiwan is third, Israel is fourth, and the United States, five.
  From 1995 to 2018, China increased its investment in research and 
development by more than 15 percent on average, reaching $463 billion 
in 2018. Since then, they have accelerated the pace. China's 
investments were nearly double the increase we have seen in Korea, 
which has the second highest R&D. During that same period, America grew 
by less than 5 percent, leaving it only $89 billion ahead of China.

[[Page S2262]]

  Last December, a report from Harvard warned that China is now a 
``full-spectrum peer competitor'' when it comes to advanced technology 
like AI and quantum computing.
  For years, I have been working on the Senate Appropriations Committee 
to address this gap--to boost federal investments in science, 
technology, and medical R&D. For America to remain the scientific and 
technological leader of the world, we need to now act significantly to 
increase investment.
  The U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, or USICA, will enable us to 
make these investments. It is a down payment on a more secure America. 
USICA will mark our Nation's largest investment in science and 
technology since Apollo 11. It will strengthen our national security in 
the age of cyber warfare. It will harness American innovation to drive 
economic growth.
  It includes a provision I led with Senator Shaheen that requires the 
U.S. to increase exports by 200 percent to African, Latin American, and 
Caribbean markets where China is already making considerable 
investments. This provision is going to help American workers. And, 
importantly, USICA will also reinvigorate American manufacturing by 
bringing microchip production back to our shores. It devotes $50 
billion to expand our U.S. microchip industry--a critical component in 
our future economy.
  Microchips, computer chips--the small pieces of silicon that power 
everything around us from smartphones to appliances like refrigerators 
and microwaves--even our cars have dozens of microchips.
  Right now, there is a serious global shortage. It has disrupted 
virtually every industry. It is leading to higher prices for all types 
of products. America actually invented the microchip, and we used to 
make them here, too--nearly 40 percent of the world's supply. But we 
let that manufacturing production get away. Now we have got to bring it 
home. Today, we produce only 10 percent of the world's supply of 
microchips. Also, microchip production has massive consequences for our 
economy. When a disaster like COVID hits that causes a microchip 
factory in Malaysia to halt production, American businesses and 
consumers suffer. We have become dangerously dependent on China and 
other competitors when it comes to securing our supply chain with 
microchips.
  With USICA, we can rebuild America's manufacturing and solve supply 
chain shortages. It will incentivize American companies to hire more 
American workers to make their products right here at home. In addition 
to shoring up America's supply chain, USICA will help protect American 
consumers.
  The House has a counterpart bill, the America COMPETES Act. Included 
in that is something known as the INFORM Consumers Act. I introduced 
this with Senator Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, and it was led 
in the House by Congresswoman Schakowsky and Representative Gus 
Bilirakis. This bill will help prevent counterfeit goods from China and 
stolen goods from our retail stores from being hawked by shady sellers 
on online marketplaces.
  It was 10 years ago or more, Home Depot came to see me and said: We 
got a problem.
  And I said: What is it?
  They said: Our drills are being sold on an internet marketplace.
  I said: What is wrong with that?
  They said: We are not selling them. They are the drills which are 
made in our sole manufacturing facility in China. Somewhere after they 
are made, they are stolen, and someone is stealing enough of them that 
they can offer them for sale on the internet.
  I said: Well, that explains a lot of what is going on.
  Go into a drugstore today and try to buy a deodorant, and you will 
find it is under lock and key. And you think to yourself: Wait a 
minute. That only costs a couple bucks. Why is it under lock and key? 
Because it is so frequently stolen and bought. Whether it is Home 
Depot's drills or deodorants sold at Walgreen's, people are stealing 
them in volume not for personal use or personal sale, but because there 
are gangs that are peddling these goods on the internet.

  So we put together a bill, Senator Cassidy and myself, that prevents 
these counterfeit goods and stolen goods from being sold without 
disclosing the name of the seller. We had some resistance from some of 
these internet marketplaces. They didn't want to disclose the name of 
the seller. We told them: That seller is selling stolen goods on your 
marketplace.
  ``Well, that is their business. They have a right to 
confidentiality.''
  It took a long time to persuade them otherwise.
  Our bill is being supported by a broad coalition: the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the Fraternal Order of Police, the AFL-
CIO, and Consumer Reports.
  I think it is about time. You look at these gangs that are running in 
and doing all this shoplifting in massive amounts and pulling it into 
garbage bags. It isn't for them to go out and sit on the sidewalk and 
try to sell what they have stolen. They have got a syndicate--a 
gangland operation which filters all these goods into an internet 
marketplace. Now, if we can start to identify the sellers of these 
illegal and stolen goods, perhaps we can start to bring justice to this 
situation.
  Finally, USICA is going to make crucial investments in America's 
capacity to innovate and pioneer groundbreaking technology. It 
authorizes billions of dollars to the National Science Foundation to 
help America's scientists unlock the potential of AI, quantum 
computing, and other advanced technology. These investments will make a 
difference.
  Just 2 weeks ago, I was at the University of Illinois Urbana-
Champaign, where Dr. Panchanathan, who heads up the National Science 
Foundation, made a visit. I am proud to report that many universities 
in our State do Federal research, but the University of Illinois may do 
more than most, and they receive many grants from the National Science 
Foundation.
  We welcomed the Director of that science foundation to Illinois, and 
he made a point of looking at the projects that were being funded.
  I can't even start to describe to you what some of them are. I am 
just a liberal arts lawyer. I heard these descriptions about the next 
generation of computing and technology.
  Let me tell you about one of the products which I did understand. It 
was led by Professor Girish Chowdhary, along with a CEO of his company, 
Chinmay Soman.
  The project they started is called EarthSense. Picture this, if you 
will: Their goal is to combine machine learning with smart agriculture 
to build robots that our farmers can use to grow crops more efficiently 
and improve the environment.
  So I watched the little robots go to work. They are powered by 
batteries, and if you can picture a cornfield--and we have got a lot of 
them in Illinois--these robots go between the rows of corn. And while 
they are going down the rows, they are gathering data and information: 
moisture in the ground; pictures of the soybeans and corn above them to 
determine whether or not they are being successful and most productive; 
and, at the same time, they are spreading seeds for a cover crop that 
is going to be growing following the harvesting of the corn. They are 
guided remotely by computer. And that is the future of farming, I 
believe.
  I think getting a picture of a farmer on a tractor is something you 
want to hang onto as a souvenir. The farms of the future are going to 
be managed by autonomous machines--robots and the like--and it is going 
to be a lot more efficient. It kind of breaks the hearts of our farmers 
to talk in these terms, but that is the reality, and we better be on 
top of it. EarthSense at the University of Illinois is a good 
illustration. Every State is home to institutions that support 
researchers working. Let's give them the tools and resources they need.
  Do we want a future in which flying drones overhead demand that 
hungry citizens suppress their soul's desire for freedom or a future in 
which robots help grow more food to feed the planet?
  Which nations and which values shape the world's future will be 
informed by the decisions we make in Congress and in Washington.
  Let's send this competitiveness package to President Biden's desk and 
invest in America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Iowa.

[[Page S2263]]

  



                       Remembering Orrin G. Hatch

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to speak 
about Orrin Hatch, whom many of us were fortunate enough to work with 
for many, many years. He had a tremendous impact on the U.S. Senate 
and, in turn, on America.
  Barbara and I first want to express our condolences to Elaine, his 
wife, to their six children and their families, and to all of those who 
mourn the passing of this outstanding public servant and humble servant 
of the Lord.
  Senator Hatch's funeral will be this Friday.
  In December of 2018, as his incredible 42 years in the U.S. Senate 
were drawing to a close, Orrin Hatch delivered the usual farewell 
address of retiring Members here on the Senate floor.
  Concerned about the direction that he had seen this institution take 
in recent years, he said:

       We must restore the culture of comity, compromise, and 
     mutual respect that used to exist here--and still does, in 
     some respects.

  He also said:

       We must not be enemies but friends.

  In his farewell address and in the quotes that I just read, Orrin's 
commitment to mutual respect and integrity is made very clear. It is 
also a charge to us to honor his memory by taking his words to heart as 
we go about our work here and in what we do across the country.
  During Orrin's career, he served as chairman of the Finance 
Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and as President pro tem of the 
U.S. Senate. I have had the honor of doing those same three things. The 
Finance Committee and the Judiciary Committee are powerful committees 
that deal with matters of broad importance to America. Decisions are 
made there that directly affect the lives of all Americans. Many times, 
dearly held beliefs and principles held by different Senators come into 
conflict during long hours of work on important legislation or with 
high-level Cabinet and judicial nominations.
  Many of the tributes to Orrin have already made an observation which 
I share from our decades of working together at the negotiating table.
  Orrin was an unflinching, dyed-in-the-wool statesman who stayed true 
to his values and his convictions and finessed disagreements with a 
spirit of collegiality. He always remembered that he was working with 
friends and not enemies, and he always remembered why he was in the 
U.S. Senate--to represent the great people of Utah. Orrin's ability to 
disagree without being disagreeable was evident from his incredible 
level of productivity. According to the Orrin G. Hatch Foundation, when 
he retired, he had passed more legislation into law than any living 
Senator and had sponsored or cosponsored more than 750 bills that were 
enacted into law.
  As anyone who has spent any length of time in the Senate knows very 
well, getting legislation enacted into law, especially any enduring 
legislation, requires the ability to develop relationships and build 
trust with Members of both parties. To be productive over the long 
term, those relationships need to be able to withstand the unproductive 
partisanship that tends to dominate the fleeting issues of the day.
  Some of Orrin's most significant legislative accomplishments 
highlight his ability to work across the aisle.
  A prime example is the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term 
Restoration Act, also known as Hatch-Waxman, stemming from his work 
with longtime Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman.
  Another important piece of legislation is the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program on which he worked with the late Senator Ted Kennedy. 
Orrin regularly talked about working with his good friend Senator 
Kennedy. For many years, Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy appeared to be 
complete opposites. They couldn't imagine that those two Senators, with 
very different views, could even work together, much less be friends. 
People who say that don't understand how the Senate works.
  Orrin's spirit of bipartisanship didn't come at the expense of his 
principles. Whether he was criticized for compromising with Democrats 
or for not compromising enough, Orrin stuck with what he believed was 
the right thing to do.
  As chairman of the Finance Committee, during consideration of the Tax 
Cuts and Jobs Act, Orrin took the lead in drafting the most important 
tax reform legislation to be enacted in more than 30 years.
  When staff would discuss provisions to be included in the 
legislation, Orrin would repeatedly ask what the tax policy was. This 
was always his primary concern, not what was the most politically 
expedient policy or the best policy with which to win reelection. Orrin 
wanted to get the details right, and the rest of his decisions flowed 
from that perspective. I know because I worked with him for decades on 
that committee, particularly during that legislation.
  Despite the criticism he would get from all sides, Orrin would never 
let that drive him off course from sticking with his values and from 
being civil with his colleagues. In his office, Orrin had a statue of a 
red-tailed hawk that staff had given to him. It had a plaque on it that 
said, ``Tough old bird.'' He adopted that phrase to describe himself to 
reporters and many who met him in his office.
  His ``tough old bird'' status was fully evident one late night during 
the Finance Committee's consideration of that tax bill I have referred 
to--the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. When Republicans were accused of only 
being interested in looking out for the very rich, Orrin forcefully 
noted his own very humble beginnings. He shared how he had worked his 
whole career for ``people who don't have a chance.''
  Another principle Orrin shared with me was the importance of staff. 
To be effective day in and day out and to sift through the avalanche of 
information that comes into every Senator's office, good staff is 
vital, particularly when a Senator has served for a lengthy period of 
time. Staff is important to preserving the institutional memory of a 
committee. From years of around-the-clock work, they become really a 
second family. They may not share blood ties, but they share loyalty 
and share service to dig down into the trenches when policymaking and 
politics become a blood sport. So having longevity and cohesion within 
a staff is very, very important.

  A tradition that I believe was unique to the Hatch office was the 
election of a Pioneer Day's King and Queen from the people within that 
office. Now, Pioneer Day is a Utah State holiday that celebrates the 
entry of the first Mormon pioneers into Salt Lake Valley on July 24, 
1847. To recognize that holiday, everyone working for Senator Hatch, 
whether in his personal office or on a committee he chaired, would vote 
for a King and Queen from a slate of candidates from within that 
office. At a lunch attended by the whole office, Orrin would announce 
the winners and crown the King and Queen. The coronation was a salute 
to their service to the people of Utah, whose enduring pioneering 
spirit rings true to this very day.
  Outside of ensuring his office was a place that good staff would want 
to work, Orrin was no aloof boss. His sincerity shined through with me 
and his Senate colleagues and then, of course, with his staff. He 
wanted to know what was happening in his staff's lives and made sure to 
say that he appreciated their advice even when he might not take that 
advice.
  In closing, I return to what I said about Orrin and what he said in 
his farewell address. I associate myself with his remarks that we must 
be friends and not enemies. That is how we can honor Orrin Hatch and 
keep his spirit within this institution that he cared so much for and 
devoted much of his life to--here, right here, in the Senate.
  Orrin's lifetime of public service helped generations of families in 
Utah achieve a better quality of life and made America and the U.S. 
Senate a better place.
  Godspeed, my friend.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled vote: I 
for up to 15 minutes, Senator Murray for up to 5 minutes, Senator Thune 
for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, this is my 283rd travel to the Senate

[[Page S2264]]

floor to ask that we wake up to the threat of climate change--an issue 
that demands, right now, American leadership. Over the recent recess, I 
traveled to parts of the world where climate catastrophe looms, and I 
saw firsthand what the absence of American leadership has cost.
  My first stop was to the 2022 Our Oceans Conference in Palau, where I 
joined President Biden's Special Envoy for Climate, Secretary John 
Kerry, to discuss the state of our oceans. It was another productive 
Our Oceans Conference, leading to 410 commitments from around the 
world, worth $16.35 billion, to fund climate action, reduce plastic 
pollution, and reduce illegal fishing, among other things. These 
commitments are, indeed, a hopeful sign.
  Palau is a tiny, beautiful ocean nation on the very far side of the 
Pacific Rim. This archipelago relies almost entirely on the ocean, with 
tourism as the dominant industry and fishing as a way of life. Palau 
has a front-row seat to the changes taking place in our ocean. Rising 
ocean temperatures and sea levels, acidification, disrupted fisheries, 
more frequent storms--they see and feel these every day.
  I have spoken a lot about the amount of heat trapped by greenhouse 
gas pollution and then absorbed by our oceans. It is equivalent to 
multiple Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs being detonated in the ocean 
every second. That is the heat load that we are adding. In the last 
three decades, our oceans warmed eight times faster than in preceding 
decades. This is so much heat that you have to measure it using a 
special super unit of measurement--the zettajoule.
  What is a zettajoule? A joule--J-O-U-L-E--is our standard unit of 
heat energy. A zettajoule is that unit with 21 zeros behind it. Here is 
a more practical reference: All of the energy used annually by all of 
the people in all of the world--all of it--adds up to one half--one 
half--of a zettajoule.
  What does this mean for oceans? Scientists tell us that the top 2,000 
meters of ocean absorbed a record 227 excess zettajoules of energy from 
1981 to 2010. The current rate is to load 14 zettajoules of heat into 
our oceans every single year, which means we are loading into our 
oceans every year nearly 30 times more heat than the entire energy use 
of the entire species on the entire planet.
  If you take a look at the segment of our energy use that is produced 
by fossil fuels, that segment, which is less than half a zettajoule, is 
creating this effect of 14 zettajoules of heat into the oceans every 
single year. We are pumping into the oceans nearly 30 times our total 
global human energy use.
  This kind of heat is why coral reefs face mass bleaching and are 
dying, and, of course, dead reefs threaten the collapse of entire ocean 
ecosystems. It is not just dying reefs; when water warms, it expands, 
which means sea levels are rising and will rise by feet in the decades 
ahead--a big problem for coastal communities everywhere, including 
Connecticut and Rhode Island.
  I landed in Palau on the heels of an unexpected tropical storm--
unseasonal--that grew into a violent typhoon. Climate change makes 
these storms more frequent, more severe, and more unpredictable, 
putting coastal infrastructure everywhere under serious threat.
  From Palau, I met up with a congressional delegation traveling to 
India and Nepal--two nations at the center of dire global security 
risks. Nepal's Himalayan glaciers are the source of much of Asia's 
freshwater. The Himalayan snowcap is so big, it is described as the 
Earth's third pole--the North Pole with all of its ice, the South Pole 
with all of its ice, and the Himalayan glacier with all of its ice. As 
the planet warms, those Himalayan glaciers shrink away.
  Our 1.5-degree Celsius global warming target right now is, in effect, 
a 2.1-degree Celsius global warming target for the Himalayas. Himalayan 
glacier mass is expected to drop by more than a third by the end of the 
century. If the glaciers aren't there to feed the rivers, the rivers 
don't have the water to flow.
  For India, the consequences are deadly serious. According to the U.S. 
Institute of Peace, losing that glacial flow will spell rampant 
sickness, hunger, and economic calamity downstream, which could, as 
they say--I quote them--``in turn, open the door to conflict.'' Well, 
obviously, if people don't have the water they need to live, they are 
going to fight over it.
  A likely flashpoint is Kashmir, the region between India and 
Pakistan--two nuclear-armed adversaries. India's Parliament has 
reported on the challenge climate change poses for distributing scarce 
Himalayan water among Indian and Pakistani downstream regions. India 
plans new dams on the Chenab River in Kashmir. Pakistan fears that 
India will pinch off river flow into Pakistan, perhaps to put economic 
survival pressure on Pakistan in times of conflict. Suspicions between 
the two countries of riparian mischief run high, and long memories of 
conflict linger. Food security, electricity generation, and public 
safety are all at stake, giving nuclear-armed adversaries a lot to 
fight over.
  So what did we see and feel in India? Scorching heat--109 degrees 
Fahrenheit at the Taj Mahal. Last week in Delhi, thermometers topped 
110 degrees. In Nawabshah, Pakistan, temperatures hit 117\1/2\ degrees. 
In another area of Pakistan, temperatures exceeded 122 degrees. Try to 
walk around and work and live outdoors in 122 degrees. It doesn't work. 
This is the kind of heat where the human body no longer functions 
properly. It can't cool itself. And, of course, electricity grids fail, 
and lots of water evaporates.
  We discussed these issues with the Nepali Prime Minister and Congress 
president. Their government is clear-eyed about this problem. Their 
glaciers are thinning before their eyes. They see it now, they feel it 
in river flow, and they see it in the risk of glacier collapse, which 
leads to catastrophic downstream flooding. They feel all these shocks 
to their region's food supply and every tremor from their neighbors' 
conflicts. Their message to us is really clear: ``Nepal is ready to 
join hands with the U.S. on the issue of climate change,'' one of the 
Nepali Parliamentarians told us, but the United States needs to step 
up.
  Our last stop was Doha in Qatar, where I met with airmen of the Rhode 
Island Air National Guard and other servicemembers carrying out vital 
missions in the Middle East at Al Udeid Air Base.
  The Defense Department is worried about climate heat compromising its 
flight operations in places as hot as Doha. It gets hard to operate out 
on the runways in the kind of heat that climate change is causing, and 
Doha is hot. You may recall the news a few years ago about Qatar 
considering air-conditioning the out of doors. DOD's October 2021 
Climate Risk Analysis listed rising temperatures affecting flight 
operations and ``aircraft performance''--``loss of payload capacity, 
range, and loiter time''--as the military has to schedule for ``too hot 
to fly'' times of day. For the airmen I met with, out protecting our 
country, these are real issues now.

  The world cries out for Congress to act, to reclaim America's place 
of leadership on this defining issue of our time. The people of Palau 
cannot fix the ocean heat on their own. The people of India, Pakistan, 
and Nepal cannot solve the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers on 
their own. Our airmen cannot cool the temperatures disrupting their 
flight operations on their own.
  President Clinton once said that the world is always ``more impressed 
by the power of our [American] example than by [any] example of our 
[American] power.'' If we are to remain Daniel Webster's city on a 
hill, we must reflect the power of that good American example beyond 
our borders. This goes beyond climate change; this goes to the heart of 
the integrity of the American brand.
  At the end of an American century where we rebuilt Europe with the 
Marshall Plan and rebuilt Asia with the MacArthur Plan and set the 
stage for the freedom and peace and economic growth that this American 
century has produced, we are at risk of squandering that entire 
reputation as people from Palau to Nepal suffer and experience the 
consequences of climate change and know perfectly well that America 
could have and should have led, that America could have and should have 
done something about this, that America knew what the climate risk was 
and failed to act, and that the failure is explained by the worst of 
all possible

[[Page S2265]]

reasons: We got rolled by the special interests, the fossil fuel 
industry, whose conflict of interest is apparent but whose power 
through dark money and pressure and corruption in this body has 
disabled us for more than a decade from doing what everyone knows is 
right.
  Our failure and the disgraceful reason for it will be a visible blot 
on America's standing for decades if we don't act. If we don't act, if 
we fail, don't think no one will notice. What we are doing is open and 
notorious, and it is a devastating failure of American leadership.
  We must pass a real climate bill now. It is time, as I have said 283 
times, to wake up.
  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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              S.J. Res. 39

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier today on the floor, 
President Biden has apparently decided that COVID is over at our 
southern border but not, apparently, for American toddlers.
  While a court injunction has barred enforcement in a number of 
States, the Department of Health and Human Services has still not 
repealed its mask and vaccine mandate for Head Start Programs--a 
mandate that requires children as young as 2 years old to wear masks 
indoors and, incredibly, outside.
  The scientific evidence for masking toddlers is shaky at best. The 
World Health Organization does not recommend masking for children under 
5. The concerns about the effect on speech and children's development 
are real. But none of that seems to matter to the administration.
  Despite the low danger of serious illness in children, apparently the 
Biden administration believes that toddlers should be masked in 
perpetuity--a position Secretary Becerra doubled down on in front of 
the Senate Finance Committee last month.
  If the Biden administration isn't going to repeal its toddler mask 
mandate, it is time for Congress to step in and do it for them. The 
resolution of disapproval that I have introduced and which we are 
voting on in the next few minutes would end the administration's 
mandate, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for this 
resolution. It is past time to call a halt to the Biden 
administration's outdated and unscientific mandate and ensure that our 
toddlers can run around the playground mask-free.
  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.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              S.J. Res. 39

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what we are about to vote on is just 
another distraction while Republicans are taking away abortion rights.
  I want to be clear: This coming vote is about more than just masks. 
The Congressional Review Act resolution could have hugely consequential 
and potentially damaging effects not just for the current pandemic but 
for the future as well.
  Young children getting an early education through our Head Start 
Program are the only age group that cannot yet be vaccinated against 
COVID-19. That means parents of children under 5 are in a really 
difficult position right now. They don't have the choice to vaccinate 
their children. So they are dependent on the adults who care for them 
to do everything they can to continue protecting them.
  But Senator Thune's resolution fails to take into consideration the 
concerns of parents with young children, and I don't just mean masks. 
This resolution would also take away a tool for Head Start programs to 
ensure that adults are vaccinated when caring for kids who cannot get 
vaccinated themselves.
  Now, once our youngest children can get fully vaccinated, it probably 
makes sense to revisit some of these requirements, but we are not there 
yet--something I know so many parents are worried about and frustrated 
by. Right now, we need to do everything we can to protect our children 
and give parents some peace of mind.
  We also need to think about the dangerous repercussions this CRA 
could have in the future. This resolution would prevent HHS from 
implementing critical public health practices that keep our kids safe 
in the future. Enacting a CRA permanently constrains an Agency's 
ability to regulate again in that space, and I cannot overstate how 
serious such a step would be. What if there is a new threat but we 
can't implement the necessary public health measures which we know can 
keep kids safe because they have been blocked by the CRA?
  We need to make sure that HHS and the Head Start Program can protect 
our most vulnerable children in case there is a new, more dangerous 
variant or even a new pandemic threat. Mr. President, when you get in 
from the rain, you may put your umbrella away, but you don't throw it 
out. And when it comes to this pandemic, some of us are safely inside; 
but for the young kids who cannot yet get vaccinated, they are still 
out in the storm, and their parents are still counting on having that 
umbrella. And when it comes to the future, there could be other rainy 
days. So let's not throw away this important tool to keep our kids 
safe.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will read 
the joint resolution for the third time.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.


                          Vote on S.J. Res. 39

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  The yeas and nays have been requested.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  (Mr. MARKEY assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) 
and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Tuberville).
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 147 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Ossoff
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--41

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bennet
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Tuberville
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 39) was passed, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 39

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Health 
     and Human Services relating to ``Vaccine and Mask 
     Requirements To Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 in Head

[[Page S2266]]

     Start Programs'' (86 Fed. Reg. 68052 (November 30, 2021)), 
     and such rule shall have no force or effect.

                          ____________________