[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.
____________________