[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 199 (Wednesday, December 21, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9719-S9724]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


     
     
        AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
                    RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2023
     
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
       The legislative clerk read as follows:
     
            House Message to accompany H.R. 2617, a bill to amend 
          section 1115 of title 31, United States Code, to amend the 
          description of how performance goals are achieved, and for 
          other purposes.
     
       Pending:
     
            Schumer motion to concur in the amendment of the House to 
          the amendment of the Senate No. 4 to the bill, with Schumer 
          (for Leahy) amendment No. 6552, in the nature of a 
          substitute.
            Schumer amendment No. 6571 (to amendment No. 6552), to add 
          an effective date.
            Schumer motion to refer the message of the House on the 
          bill to the Committee on Appropriations, with instructions, 
          Schumer amendment No. 6572, to add an effective date.
            Schumer amendment No. 6573 (to the instructions (amendment 
          No. 6572) of the motion to refer), to modify the effective 
          date.
            Schumer amendment No. 6574 (to amendment No. 6573), to 
          modify the effective date.
     
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
     
     
                       Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 5746
     
       Mr. WARNOCK. Mr. President, as we work in these remaining days of the 
     117th Congress, I rise today to ask the Chamber to take needed action 
     on a critical priority before we close out this Congress.
       For all that we have achieved this session, much of it on a 
     bipartisan basis, I would argue that our inability to move or our 
     failure to move on this critical issue is a moral failure on our watch, 
     the failure to get done that which is most basic to who we are, a 
     democracy, to vigorously defend the right to vote.
       Yesterday, our colleagues in the House of Representatives presented 
     their final findings regarding the tragic attack on our U.S. Capitol on 
     January 6, 2021. I commend their work and their dedication on this 
     issue to help ensure that something like January 6--a day that almost 
     broke our democracy--never happens again.
       I believe in democracy. In fact, as a man of faith, I believe that 
     democracy is the political enactment of a spiritual idea, this notion 
     that each of us has within us a spark of the divine, and therefore we 
     ought to have a voice, a vote in the direction of our country and our 
     destiny within it.
       In this government funding legislation we are working to pass, the 
     Senate is preparing to take action toward the same aim of protecting 
     our democracy--to prevent future subversion in our Presidential 
     elections--by passing the Electoral Count Reform Act.
       I commend my colleagues for their bipartisan work that will clarify 
     the role of the Vice President in certifying our Presidential elections 
     and strengthen our ability to ensure a peaceful transfer of power. It 
     is part of what makes us America. And I look forward to voting in favor 
     of the legislation, along with the rest of the government funding bill, 
     which will send critical Federal investments--investments I fought 
     for--that will help people in every corner of my home State of Georgia.
       But we must be very clear that there is more than one way to subvert 
     an election and to silence the voices of the people. While the Senate 
     takes action to protect Presidential elections and the integrity of the 
     electoral college, in Georgia right now, during our most recent 
     election, we had to sue officials of the State of Georgia just to allow 
     people to vote on the Saturday that began the runoff period.
       Voters waited in long lines--lines that would have been even longer 
     had I not sued the officials of the State of Georgia. People stood in 
     line for hours and hours and hours in the cold and in the rain to cast 
     their ballots. Now, some folks might be fine with that, but I am not. 
     You can have a right to the vote and yet be denied access.
       Georgia voters decided that their voices would not be silenced. They 
     did show up in record numbers, thank God. But that does not mean that 
     voter suppression does not exist; it just means that the people refused 
     to have their voices silenced.
       We cannot in good conscience abhor election subversion in our 
     Presidential elections while at the same time turning a blind eye when 
     the voices of voters are suppressed and subverted on a local and State 
     level. It is a contradiction that I cannot abide.
       So while we do the important work today of passing the Electoral 
     Count Reform Act, we must also pass the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis 
     Act, which will, one, restore bedrock voting protections established by 
     the Voting Rights Act of 1965; two, set a Federal baseline for voting 
     standards to ensure every eligible voter has access to the ballot no 
     matter where they live, no matter their ZIP Code; and three, we have to 
     protect our elections from subversion by craven politicians. Voters 
     should pick their representatives, not the other way around. It doesn't 
     matter if your votes are properly counted if you can barely cast your 
     vote in the first place.
       The Electoral Count Reform Act, while important to pass, will not 
     protect voters from long lines; it will not prevent efforts to sow 
     confusion through mass challenges of voter registration; and it will 
     not stop State politicians from trying to take over local election 
     administrations.
       I would encourage my colleagues to Google a county in Georgia, and 
     see what has happened in recent history. Just Google Quitman County, 
     GA. See what happened there just a few years ago, and you will see that 
     our struggle continues.
       So as we prepare now to celebrate Dr. King next month, we must 
     remember his words, which are as true now as they were back then: 
     ``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' And I will never stop fighting 
     to protect our democracy and the sacred right to vote.
       I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate the 
     message to accompany H.R. 5746; that the motion to concur in the House 
     amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill be considered and agreed 
     to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
     table.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
       The Senator from Nebraska.
       Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is 
     one of those election takeover bills.
       Last January, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to 
     break Senate rules to ram this bill through Congress. The American 
     people do not want the Federal takeover of anything, and our Founders 
     understood that. That is why anything not enumerated in the 
     Constitution goes to State and local government--the institutions that 
     are closest to the people that they represent. That is transparency. 
     That is fairness.
       The best election laws are the ones that make it easy to vote but 
     hard to cheat. And we already know that this is possible. With 
     Georgia's new law in place, the State set a new record for most ballots 
     ever cast in a midterm election. Both early voting and mail-in voting 
     broke the alltime midterm records. These Republican-led States--they 
     got it right. Their critics got it wrong.
       This election takeover bill, which the Senate has already rejected, 
     is not going to be passed today.
       Therefore, I object.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
       Mr. WARNOCK. Mr. President, I would yield some of my time to the 
     gentlewoman from the great State of Minnesota.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
       Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am so honored to join my colleague 
     Senator Warnock to speak on the urgent need to pass this legislation, 
     the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.
       No one speaks better to this than Reverend Warnock. I have often told 
     the story that we were out on the steps of the Supreme Court after a 
     number of voter suppression laws had been introduced and passed around 
     the country. I gave what I thought was an excellent speech, and then he 
     came in and just said a few words, and they were these: ``Some people 
     don't want some people to vote.'' And I thought, all those words I 
     said, it really just comes down to that.
       Our country has always believed in the freedom to vote. For years, 
     this has been a bipartisan issue with voting rights acts, with George 
     Bush doing
     
     [[Page S9720]]
     
     press conferences declaring his support for the Voting Rights Act.
     
       So the reauthorization of the John Lewis bill and the changes made to 
     that bill are necessary, but so is the Freedom to Vote Act because it 
     sets the stage so that every person in America, regardless of their ZIP 
     Code, has the ability to drop off a ballot in a ballot box or send in 
     their ballot by mail or do it without having to have a notary sign for 
     their ballot.
       All of this for many of us is about the reason we came here, which is 
     to uphold our democracy.
       I want to thank Senator Warnock for hosting the Rules Committee in 
     Atlanta for the first field hearing in 20 years. I will end with a 
     story I heard that day. Jose Segarra, a veteran living in Central 
     Georgia, told us how he took his older neighbors to vote early--this 
     was in the last election--but they gave up because there was a line 
     wrapped around the block and then went back to vote, and he waited for 
     hours in the hot Sun.
       He is a veteran. He served in the Air Force during Operation Desert 
     Storm. I asked him whether, when he signed up to serve, there was a 
     waiting line, and he said: No, ma'am. But when I came home and I had to 
     vote and I wanted to exercise my freedom that I fought for on the 
     battlefield, I had to wait in line for hours.
       It is not just about, as Reverend Warnock has pointed out, making it 
     impossible for people to vote; sometimes it is just making it really 
     hard for them to vote, and that is what we are fighting against with 
     this bill. I thank him.
       I look forward to working with Senator Fischer. She was a strong 
     supporter of the Electoral Count Act. She is the new incoming ranking 
     member of the Rules Committee, and I know we will do great work 
     together. But I stand in support of Reverend Warnock's unanimous 
     consent motion.
       I yield the floor.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
       Mr. WARNOCK. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague Senator 
     Fischer is no longer here, and what I would want to ask her is whether 
     she thinks the 1965 voting rights law was a Federal takeover of State 
     elections and local elections. I submit, without the 1965 voting rights 
     law, I would not be standing here. So I think we should have a 
     principled conversation about that. More recently, I had to sue the 
     State of Georgia so we could vote on Saturday.
       I would call on the Senate to live up to its obligation, as in 
     article I. The Senate must pass substantive voting rights legislation. 
     And know this: I will not rest until we live up to that moral 
     obligation and do what the people of America have sent us here to do.
       I yield the floor.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
     
     
                        Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3959
     
       Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, last month, a Federal judge in 
     Washington, DC, ruled that the Department of Homeland Security could 
     not continue to use title 42 pandemic-related authority to expedite the 
     removal of aliens who enter our country illegally. That is effective as 
     of December 21. That is today. Although it has been temporarily halted 
     while the Supreme Court hears an emergency appeal, title 42 is hanging 
     by a thread. It is unconscionable for Congress to stand aside and do 
     nothing to preserve it.
       Title 42 authority was initially based on the pandemic, and while I 
     agree that the pandemic is over, the border crisis is worse than ever. 
     Whether to keep effective border security policies in place should not 
     depend on whether there is a pandemic.
       There is another epidemic plaguing our Nation, one that demands 
     immediate attention. Deadly fentanyl--produced with the help of the 
     Chinese Communist Party and smuggled across our southern border by 
     deadly drug cartels--has flooded our communities across America.
       More than 100,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in the last 12 
     months alone, most of them from synthetic opioids like fentanyl. It is 
     the No. 1 cause of death for American adults aged 18 to 45.
       The rise in fentanyl overdoses and deaths affects every State and 
     congressional district. It kills the young and the old, the rich and 
     the poor, people in cities and people in small towns alike. It is not a 
     partisan issue, and finding a solution should not be partisan either.
       When I talk to Tennessee sheriffs, they tell me that fentanyl is 
     becoming more and more lethal, how a so-called bad batch can kill 
     dozens of people in an instant.
       Once this deadly substance arrives in American communities, it is too 
     late. We have to stop it before it crosses our borders. That is why I 
     have introduced legislation that allows for the use of title 42 
     authority to stop the smuggling of illicit and lethal drugs like 
     fentanyl.
       When I travelled to the border in April, Border Patrol agents told me 
     that cartels use waves of illegal border crossings as a cover to 
     transport fentanyl and other deadly narcotics. While Border Patrol 
     agents are focused on managing caravans and border crossers, the gap in 
     coverage is exploited by the smugglers. In many cases, these are well-
     planned and coordinated occurrences. The agents told me that the people 
     don't stay at the border, and the drugs don't either.
       Title 42 is the last tool Border Patrol has left to partially slow 
     the ongoing tidal wave of illegal crossings. Without this tool, our 
     Border Patrol agents will have no way to slow down the massive increase 
     in illegal immigration, which will get far worse as a result. Americans 
     will pay the price. That is why, given the potential expiration of 
     title 42 within hours or days, passing my legislation today is 
     imperative. Letting title 42 end without creating a permanent new 
     authority to replace it empowers drug cartels. It enables them to send 
     migrants across the border at strategic points, bogging down Border 
     Patrol agents with processing--processing that takes five times longer 
     without title 42. Cartels will then use the longer and more frequent 
     enforcement gaps to move more fentanyl across our border. We cannot 
     allow this to happen.
       My legislation simply adds drug smuggling as an additional basis for 
     using title 42 authority. It is called the Stop Fentanyl Border 
     Crossings Act. It would allow the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services to use title 42 to combat substantial dangerous drug 
     trafficking across the border. It would give Border Patrol a necessary 
     tool to stop drug traffickers.
       Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration 
     of S. 3959, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I 
     further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, 
     and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
     table.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
       The Senator from Washington.
       Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I share my 
     colleague's determination to address the opioid crisis. In fact, I 
     worked in a bipartisan way with Senator Burr to ensure that this end-
     of-the-year spending bill includes serious steps to help our 
     communities. We worked year-round on bipartisan policies to support 
     States as they tackle fentanyl and the worsening opioid crisis, to help 
     people get treatment for substance use disorders, and a lot more.
       So I sincerely hope the Senator from Tennessee will join us in voting 
     to get this across the finish line. This is really important to help 
     folks on the front line of this fight. And, of course, we have more 
     work to do here, and I will keep pushing with everything I have got to 
     help fight the opioid crisis. But as I have reminded my colleague 
     before, title 42 is a public health tool, and how it is used should be 
     guided by public health experts looking at data and looking at science, 
     not politicians looking to score political points.
       Drug trafficking is a serious problem and one we have law enforcement 
     agencies who are responsible for. We should leave that work to them and 
     support their efforts, and we can do that by passing the omnibus bill, 
     which increases their funding.
       So while I welcome the opportunity to work with my Republican 
     colleagues on this serious issue, bipartisan solutions are needed to 
     address drug trafficking--we need to build on the strong steps we are 
     taking in the omnibus to fight fentanyl. So at this time, I object.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
     
     [[Page S9721]]
     
       
     
       Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
       Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, we are experiencing a tidal wave at our 
     southern border of illegal immigration, and that tidal wave is going to 
     turn into a tsunami the minute title 42 is dropped. Title 42 may be 
     removed at any minute, at any hour. It is on a temporary hold after 
     today.
       More than 100,000 Americans are dying every year because of poison 
     from fentanyl coming across the southern border. I find it especially 
     disheartening that my colleagues are not willing to allow discretionary 
     authority to limit border crossings when necessary to combat 
     substantial and dangerous illicit drug smuggling. Even the Biden 
     administration is already preparing for a tidal wave across this 
     border. Yet my Democrat colleagues can't even agree on a commonsense 
     policy to address this glaring problem. My legislation will work 
     immediately to address this problem.
       Border Patrol agents are now predicting daily crossings will roughly 
     double to 15,000 to 18,000 per day as soon as title 42 is lifted. This 
     is going to be truly overwhelming at our border, and the results are 
     predictable. More young Americans will die, and I just don't know how 
     bad this crisis has to get before Democrats will join me to acknowledge 
     it and work to stop it.
       I yield the floor.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
     
     
                        Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1658
     
       Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to address an 
     important issue, which is the ability of our women who have given birth 
     to a child to be able to sustain breastfeeding by being able to pump 
     breast milk when they return to work.
       We adopted this law in Oregon. It was universally successful. When I 
     came here to the Senate, I proposed that we do the same across the 
     Nation; and 12 years ago, we passed that bill. It was a great time for 
     nursing mothers, enabling 49 million women of childbearing age to know 
     that if they wanted to breastfeed, they would have a cooperative 
     employer giving them privacy and flexible break times to be able to 
     pump breast milk.
       It was a triple win. It was a triple win for the babies; it was a 
     triple win for the mothers; and it turned out to be a big win for the 
     employer as well because the employers found that their employees were 
     more likely to come back to work and that they felt appreciated because 
     the employer recognized the importance of that mother trying to do 
     their very best by their newborn.
       We know that half of women in America return to work within 3 months 
     of giving birth. We know that about one in four will return to work 
     after just 2 weeks. That is why this is so important.
       When I first raised this idea here in the Senate, I thought that 
     there would be significant opposition, but an unexpected champion was 
     Senator Coburn of Oklahoma. Senator Coburn said that Senator Merkley 
     had not begun to list all the ways that breastfeeding works to the 
     benefit of the baby and the mother. He went on to list all of the 
     health benefits, and we passed the amendment unanimously in the HELP 
     Committee. Democrats and Republicans working together for new moms and 
     for our children to get the best launch into life.
       I will have a unanimous consent request in a moment, but I want to 
     turn to the cosponsor of our bill. I so much appreciate Senator 
     Murkowski of Alaska.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
       Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I join my colleague to speak about the 
     PUMP Act, Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers 
     Act. Senator Merkley has outlined, I think well, the benefits of this 
     bill. Effectively, what this act does is it fixes an oversight which 
     unintentionally excluded about 9 million working moms from being able 
     to pump breast milk while at work.
       I think we recognize, as Senator Merkley has said, women want to 
     come--so many want to be able to come back to the workforce after 
     giving birth, but they also want to be able to provide their infant, 
     their child, with the significant benefits that come with a mother's 
     milk.
       These working moms are a significant part of our workforce. I think 
     it is incumbent upon us to make sure that they can pump while at work 
     without imposing burdensome requirements on businesses.
       I have been the lead Republican on the PUMP Act now, working with 
     Senator Merkley for a couple years--a couple years working to get to 
     this point. It is so unfortunate that at this late date on the 
     calendar, as we are looking to close out, that this measure, this 
     important measure--important for the mothers, important for babies, 
     important for employers--it is so unfortunate that it is being held at 
     this moment.
       It is unfortunate because I think what we have in front of us now is 
     a fair and a balanced proposal. It allows moms to pump at work while 
     ensuring that, again, businesses aren't saddled with burdensome and 
     costly regulation. The Chamber of Commerce has endorsed the measure. 
     This is too important to not continue the good work.
       I want to acknowledge not only the work of Senator Merkley on this, 
     but to Senators Murray, Burr, Cantwell, and Wicker. They worked with us 
     and they negotiated in good faith to get the text to a good place and 
     to really help to develop the support for this bill.
       But I do think that the work that has come to this point, the very 
     important sections that have gone forward, the agreements that have 
     been made, have put us in a good place.
       Senator Merkley, I truly appreciate your willingness to negotiate and 
     to get us to a point where we can legislate to improve the lives of 
     millions of women across the Nation.
       So I would urge those who continue to oppose this measure to 
     reconsider that, and I would yield at this moment to the Senator from 
     Washington.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
       Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am here today to urge all my colleagues 
     to let us make life just a little bit easier for working moms by 
     passing this bipartisan PUMP Act.
       This is really straightforward. When new moms return to work, they 
     should have the time and space they need to pump and breastfeed their 
     baby. It is not new. It is not controversial. It is actually 
     commonsense and basic human decency.
       Right now there is this loophole that leaves nearly 9 million working 
     moms who are not covered by Federal protections. Nine million working 
     moms do not have the simple right to a reasonable break time and a 
     private place to pump when they are breastfeeding.
       That is plain wrong. Right now, we have a chance to change that. 
     Right now, we can pass the PUMP Act. We can help close this loophole to 
     make sure moms are covered so they can keep their jobs and keep 
     breastfeeding their babies. It should not be controversial.
       This is a bipartisan bill, and I am really thankful for my 
     colleagues, Senators Merkley and Murkowski, for their relentless work 
     on this. They have worked nonstop to get this done. And we have, by the 
     way, made great progress. The bill passed the House in a bipartisan 
     vote with huge margins. The vote was 276 to 149. And it passed in our 
     HELP Committee by voice vote. So let's get it to the President's desk.
       It is so simple: Moms deserve to be able to return to work and still 
     breastfeed. They deserve a reasonable break and a private space to 
     pump, and they actually are watching us right now to see if we can 
     deliver on this really straightforward bill. So I urge my colleagues, 
     don't stand in the way. Stand with moms. Let us pass this bill.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
       Mr. MERKLEY. Much appreciation for the minority and majority side of 
     the Commerce and HELP Committees for doing so much work on this. 
     Senator Burr, Senator Wicker, Senator Lummis, all added a lot for 
     getting us to this point.
       I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
     consideration of Calendar No. 65, S. 1658; further, that the committee-
     reported substitute be withdrawn, and the Merkley-Murkowski substitute 
     amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be 
     considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider 
     be considered made and laid upon the table.
     
     [[Page S9722]]
     
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
       The Senator from Kentucky.
       Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object. This bill is a perfect 
     example of the government taking a one-size-fits-all approach on every 
     workplace in America. It is the approach of those who think that the 
     only way to get people to do the right thing is to pass a law and 
     mandate it.
       Let's just look at one industry: the motor coaches. Unlike other 
     commercial modes of transportation, motor coaches function with only 
     one employee on board, the driver, who is responsible for picking up 
     the passengers on time, getting them to their destinations safely. 
     Almost by definition, bus routes depend on schedules and sticking to 
     those schedules for customers in a safe and consistent way.
       If you think the hammer of government is the only way to get people 
     to do the right thing, you probably would assume that the motor coach 
     operators just exploit their nursing employees and don't give them any 
     accommodations--but you would be wrong. Under the laws that exist 
     today, employers routinely offer alternative temporary duties to their 
     drivers who are nursing. This is what happens with the motor coaches. 
     They are accommodating and doing the right thing as most people in the 
     workplace are.
       This bill would prohibit solutions like that. It would actually make 
     it more difficult for motor coaches to accommodate their workers by 
     allowing them to have alternative duties, even when they are mutually 
     agreed upon between employer and employee. There is already a national 
     driver shortage, so operators have a built-in incentive to keep the 
     drivers that they have making mutually beneficial arrangements.
       There is also already a Federal law on the books that requires most 
     employers to offer reasonable break times and a private non-bathroom 
     area for their nonexempt nursing employees to use for a full year after 
     the birth of a child.
       In addition, some 32 States, including my State of Kentucky, have 
     passed their own laws on this issue, and some have even extended how 
     long nursing mothers are covered by the law.
       Since all of these accommodations already exist at the Federal and 
     the State levels, before we impose any new mandates on the whole 
     country, we ought to study whether there is actually a need for more 
     legislation in this area.
       I have an amendment to strike these new mandates and instead ask the 
     Government Accountability Office to study this issue and report back 
     within a year. I would ask my colleagues to agree to this amendment so 
     we can determine if more laws are needed before we rush to put new 
     burdens on American businesses.
       Mr. President, I would ask that the Senator modify his request so 
     that the Paul amendment, which would require a study to explore the 
     severity of the problem, at the desk be considered and agreed to.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
       Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, our 
     bill does address the motor coach situation. It clarifies, in terms of 
     conversations we have had with that industry, that, in fact, no 
     additional expense will be required and no additional drivers. We know 
     already, under the accommodations of the Disabilities Act, that there 
     are rights that exist to drivers as well.
       We have here a very limited provision because we make it clear that 
     it does not require the employer to incur any significant expense, such 
     as the removal or retrofitting of seats, or for any driver to drive in 
     unsafe conditions or make unscheduled stops. That is from a long 
     conversation that I would have been happy to have filled my colleague 
     in about if he had explored this issue.
       It has now been 8 years that this topic has been before us. It has 
     not just been studied in some academic sense; it has been studied in 
     real life, and we still have thousands and thousands of women who have 
     great difficulty getting permission to pump breast milk when they 
     return to work. Those who have been accommodated say it has made a big 
     difference in their lives with their bonding with their child, with 
     their health, as well as the child's, which is the point that Senator 
     Coburn made. We have this in place for 49 million American women. Why 
     have we left 9 million out?
       By the way, in my State, we have a hardship waiver that says any 
     company that finds that this is too difficult to implement can seek an 
     accommodation. Do you know what? Nobody applied because they could all 
     figure it out.
       It is time to embrace the fact that we need to do right by our 
     children. Senator Paul's amendment, which guts this bill and says let's 
     study it, is not an answer for the millions of women who are seeking to 
     do the best by their children.
       Therefore, I object.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
       Is there any objection to the original request?
       Mr. PAUL. I object.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
       The Senator from Oregon.
       Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, my colleague doesn't share the view that 
     many of us have reached on both sides of the aisle, which is actually 
     what the legislative process embraces--that people come to this floor 
     and share their different views and then we hold a vote. He has really 
     been a champion for holding votes on amendments. He probably has had 
     more amendments before this body than any other Senator.
       Therefore, I would say to my colleague that I will provide an 
     additional unanimous consent request that will enable us to have a vote 
     on this bill. He can weigh in as he likes, and his side may carry the 
     day. But I think it is important that a question of such magnitude--
     there are so many million new moms across this country--be considered 
     and not be simply tossed in the waste bin. So I will ask consent for a 
     vote on the PUMP Act.
       I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
     consideration of Calendar No. 65, S. 1658; further, that the committee-
     reported substitute be withdrawn and that the Merkley-Murkowski 
     substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the 
     bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that 
     the Senate vote on the passage of the bill.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
       The Senator from Kentucky.
       Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I object.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
       Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I will simply conclude by noting that we 
     are all better off when issues can be debated and voted on on this 
     floor. There is tremendous frustration in the Chamber right now. We 
     have a very thick bill awaiting action. Why is it so thick? Because so 
     few bills can get debated and voted on on this floor.
       I would ask that my colleague from Kentucky, whom I have worked with 
     on many issues, think about this a little bit and maybe come back and 
     say: Yes, you are right. We should have a debate and a vote. This 
     should not be something that any one individual suppresses.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
     
     
                                     Tariffs
     
       Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, you know, it brings me no joy to rise and 
     say I told you so, but for nearly 5 years now, Americans have been 
     paying the price quite literally for the Trump-Biden tariffs on 
     imported steel and aluminum. Let me just remind my colleagues that a 
     tariff is just a word that we use sometimes to obfuscate the fact that 
     these tariffs are just taxes on American consumers--a tax they pay when 
     they purchase something that has the tariff material in it. So I want 
     to make three points about this today. The first is that taxes 
     generally and these taxes in particular do tremendous economic harm. 
     Second, these taxes have been imposed by Presidents from both parties 
     and imposed unilaterally, increasingly, and without so much as a vote 
     by the Congress. Third, this is all about to get much worse. This is 
     what happens when Congress willfully abrogates its constitutional 
     responsibilities over trade and tax policy to the executive branch.
     
       Let me start with the economic cost. The fact is that there is no 
     serious dispute in the economic world that these
     
     [[Page S9723]]
     
     tariffs, these taxes, do much more harm than good.
       Now, I know that supporters of these tariffs, including now the Biden 
     administration, will argue that this is necessary to protect American 
     jobs. That is what they will say. Well, there are roughly 140,000 
     workers directly employed in the steel industry in the United States. 
     That is a big number--140,000--but there are literally millions of 
     American workers in industries that use steel or inputs made of steel, 
     and their jobs are jeopardized by the higher cost that is created when 
     we tax these products.
       By the way, these millions of Americans who work in the industries 
     that use steel outnumber steelworkers by a ratio of roughly 80 to 1. 
     That is what we are talking about here.
       The Peterson Institute estimated that for every job saved by the 
     Trump-Biden taxes on steel, the cost to American consumers was 
     $650,000--obviously many times more than the average steelworker's 
     salary--and these costs are all paid by price increases for consumers. 
     They also cost people their livelihoods. By one estimate, the job 
     losses from these tariffs alone have been as high as 75,000 jobs. This 
     has included a lot of jobs--thousands of jobs--in my Commonwealth of 
     Pennsylvania.
       So I ask my colleagues a simple question: Is it ever really fair for 
     the government to intervene in the economy in a way that ranks one 
     person's right to earn a living higher than another person's? Is that 
     really what this government should do--decide who gets to have a job 
     and who doesn't? It is not a close call. It is flat-out morally wrong 
     for the government to be deciding which Americans get to work and which 
     ones don't, and that is what is happening here.
       It is also the case that the unilateral imposition of these taxes by 
     Presidents is being done with a completely dishonest justification. 
     These tariffs have been increasingly imposed unilaterally, as I said, 
     by Presidents who have hidden behind the national security rationale. 
     That is what they say. In other words, to add insult to injury, these 
     taxes have been imposed not through an act of Congress but by executive 
     fiat and an executive fiat that is based on a completely false premise.
       Why is this the case? Well, because there is a deep flaw in a Cold 
     War-era law. The law is called the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. It has 
     this section called section No. 232, and that section permits the 
     President to impose these tariffs, or taxes, on a product if his 
     Commerce Secretary decides that the product is a threat to the national 
     security interest of the United States.
       Now, that sounds like a reasonable idea, but it has been applied in 
     ridiculous ways. I would suggest it is ludicrous to assert that our 
     national security is harmed because we import mostly small quantities 
     of steel and aluminum from allies like Canada, Mexico, Brazil, South 
     Korea, the EU, Australia, Japan, and many others.
       But you don't have to take my word for it; you can take the word of 
     someone who is absolutely an expert on national security--former 
     Defense Secretary Mattis. He agrees with me. In a memo to President 
     Trump's Commerce Secretary, he urged against imposing these tariffs on 
     steel and aluminum. He noted that the U.S. military's needs for steel 
     and aluminum are met with a mere 3 percent of America's domestic 
     production of those mills.
       Let me put this a different way. It means what we manufacture 
     domestically--the steel and aluminum that we make in America--is more 
     than 30 times what our military needs, what our defense needs. How 
     could you possibly argue that these small quantities that we import, on 
     top of all that we make, are a national security risk? It is 
     ridiculous.
       By the way, over the past decade, we have consistently produced 
     anywhere from 70 to 90 percent of the steel we consume. Let me say that 
     again. If you look at all of the steel that we consume in the entire 
     United States of America, for all purposes--and it is a very long 
     list--we make 70 to 90 percent of that steel. And there is a national 
     security threat by importing these small other quantities to supplement 
     what we produce? Of course, it is not. It is completely disingenuous.
       Frankly, invoking national security as a justification to impose 
     these taxes on Americans is a slap in the face. It is a slap in the 
     face to small businesses that are struggling to stay afloat, those 
     small businesses that have to buy this steel with these taxes on it, 
     which they sometimes can't afford; to the manufacturing workers who are 
     laid off as the input cost rises and their products are no longer 
     competitive; and to the exporters who see their markets shut off 
     because foreign countries retaliate against these tariffs. It is a 
     terrible policy.
       There is another problem with this. It is reasonable to ask the 
     question: If the President can falsely invoke national security for the 
     sake of imposing these taxes on steel and aluminum, is there anything 
     that he can't put a tariff on in using this justification? I mean, if 
     he can use a false justification, you could falsely allege that almost 
     anything is related to national security, I suppose. Recent court 
     decisions have implied that if there is a limiting factor, the 
     administration certainly hasn't found it.
       In fact, the previous President seemed to think that, after imposing 
     tariffs, he could go back and double them or maybe triple them for any 
     reason or for no reason at all. This is what is happening. That is 
     exactly what the former President did when he doubled the tariffs he 
     had earlier imposed on Turkish steel and aluminum. When this was 
     challenged in a court, a majority gave him a pass, but one judge had a 
     very insightful dissent. He disagreed in writing and said:
     
            I fear that the majority's decision in that particular case 
          effectively accomplishes what not even Congress can 
          legitimately do--to reassign to the President its 
          constitutionally vested power over the tariff. I dissent.
     
       That judge is exactly right. He is exactly right.
       There is a separate instance wherein a judge, in wanting to 
     underscore the lack of any limiting principle on a President's ability 
     to misuse this section 232, asked during an oral argument if the 
     President could invoke national security under section 232 in order to 
     put tariffs on peanut butter. The lawyer defending the tariffs for the 
     administration either couldn't or wouldn't directly answer that 
     question.
       I know why he wouldn't answer the question. The reason is, they 
     didn't want to acknowledge even the possibility that there could be any 
     limits on a President's ability to misuse the national security clause 
     from section 232, even if it is on peanut butter.
       So where does that leave us today? Well, I regret to inform my 
     colleagues that this complete abandonment of any pretense that national 
     security actually has to matter for the purposes of imposing these 
     tariffs--the pretense is gone with the hypothetical case of peanut 
     butter, but now it has arrived in reality, and it is a lot worse than 
     peanut butter.
       This is a whole lot like the administration is pursuing section 232 
     tariffs on carbon dioxide emissions. It is under the auspices of the 
     Trump's 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum.
       The U.S. Trade Rep has just proposed a preliminary agreement with the 
     European Union for a ``carbon intensity regime'' for steel and aluminum 
     trade. Here is how this would work: The new regime would use the threat 
     of ultra-high tariffs on the steel and aluminum from other countries as 
     a way to coerce them into implementing the administration's preferred 
     climate policies. It is beginning to look a lot like Christmas for 
     climate activists.
       In short, the administration's proposal creates a new trade club for 
     countries with so-called green steel and aluminum, and even though they 
     won't admit it yet, they are using section 232 to justify this. For 
     countries to join this exclusive club, countries need to do three 
     things: They need to prove that their carbon emissions for steel and 
     aluminum fall below some level that the administration will conjure up; 
     second, they need to implement low and zero emission requirements for 
     steel and aluminum in government procurement; and thirdly, they need to 
     demonstrate that they are taking a hard line on trade remedies.
       If a country qualifies for this club, congratulations--your steel and 
     aluminum will be subject to taxes on American consumers of between 0 
     and 25 percent, depending on your emissions. If you don't join the club 
     either because you can't qualify or you don't want to be saddled with 
     these costs,
     
     [[Page S9724]]
     
     why then, Americans will be taxed much more severely. For countries 
     outside the club that want to sell steel and aluminum, Americans will 
     have to pay 25 to 70 percent taxes on those purchases.
       This idea has all kinds of very serious problems. First and foremost, 
     it is a completely unbridled overreach of authority by the executive 
     branch.
       The Office of the U.S. Trade Rep is clearly asserting that that 
     Office has power to establish carbon emissions policy for the United 
     States and our trading partners. The last time I checked, even the EPA 
     doesn't have that authority. Where does the USTR come off with this? 
     They are also abusing the conditionally delegated national security 
     powers to enact this sweeping tariff policy, which is the 
     responsibility of Congress.
       Second is that the economic harm from this proposal is going to 
     significantly compound the harm inflicted by the current 232 tariffs 
     that are already in place. First, it will result in a regime of 
     increasingly managed trade in steel and aluminum that will probably 
     benefit a handful of select producers and be a huge loss to everyone 
     else. It will hit many of our allies with increased tariffs, and that 
     will result in retaliation against American exports. It will devastate 
     American manufacturers and downstream users who rely on steel and 
     aluminum inputs for their business. Most importantly, it is going to 
     dramatically raise prices for consumers at a time when inflation is 
     still out of control.
       What makes this whole scenario really particularly egregious is that 
     Congress never once voted on it--not once. Not one of my colleagues in 
     this body or the other had the opportunity to go on record either for 
     or against these or, in fact, had any meaningful say on this. Now, I 
     suspect some of my colleagues are perfectly OK with that.
       As I warned my colleagues on both sides of the aisle years ago, this 
     abuse of section 232 will haunt us like a protectionist Frankenstein 
     unless Congress reins in executive abuse of this law.
       Let me be clear. It is never appropriate for a President of either 
     party to use national security authorities to achieve unrelated policy 
     goals. To be dishonest about what is really going on here is not 
     acceptable.
       Past Presidents used to understand this. Prior to President Trump, 
     the last time a U.S. President used section 232 to restrict trade was 
     back in 1986. Since the Trump administration, we have seen these 
     national security investigations, which is the precursor they need to 
     check their box so that they can impose these tariffs. We have seen 
     these investigations on uranium, titanium sponge, power transformer 
     components, vanadium, magnets, and then perhaps most absurdly, 
     automobiles and car parts, because I suppose if you drive a Toyota in 
     suburban Philadelphia, that makes you a threat to American national 
     security.
       As George Will asked in a 2019 column lamenting executive overreach 
     under this very section of our trade law--he said:
     
            What's next, a tariff on peanut butter?
     
       Well, it turns out we already have pretty high tariffs on peanut 
     butter, but now we are going to raise tariffs--taxes--even higher on 
     steel and aluminum and use trade law to enact climate policy while we 
     are at it.
       It is well past time for Congress to reassert and to accept its 
     constitutional responsibility over trade and tariffs. We can do that by 
     requiring that the new section 232 tariffs, including the Biden 
     administration's carbon plan--that before they go into effect, they 
     have to be approved by Congress. What is wrong with that? The 
     Constitution says it is our responsibility. Why not require an up-or-
     down vote in Congress before these taxes can go into force?
       I have introduced bipartisan legislation that will do exactly that. 
     But if we fail to act, our constituents are going to keep on paying 
     ever more expensive prices.
       I yield the floor.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The Senator from California.
     
                               ____________________