Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, today I want to discuss an unfortunate trend that has grown over the last year.

Since March of 2020, the United States has been battling COVID-19. We have lost over half a million Americans because of the virus. But I am talking about another tragedy today, and that is the tragedy that I call ``war on the cops.''

Two months after the pandemic hit and sparked by the death of George Floyd, cities all across the country broke out into violent riots. Much of that violence has been directed at law enforcement, and it has taken a very serious toll.

During the 2020 riots, more than 900 law enforcement officers were injured, including 277 officer injuries while defending the Federal courthouse in Portland and 60 Secret Service officers defending the White House. In September, a gunman ambushed two Los Angeles sheriff police deputies as they sat in their squad car. In January 2020, a violent mob attacked police defending the Capitol. Just last month, a young man killed a Capitol Police officer performing his duties.

Police across the country are suffering from demoralization and fatigue. By the end of last summer, police officers were quitting the force in large numbers. Last August, 49 officers retired from the Portland Police Bureau in Oregon. That is more than it lost in all of 2019. By the end of last summer, 140 officers had quit the Atlanta Police Department by that point in the year. That number had been only 80 in the previous year. In Washington, DC, over 300 officers have quit since last June. Only half of those were retirements; the other half just walked away.

We must consider, what does that mean for the crime in these cities? In Portland, murders increased 60 percent in 2020 from the year before. Arsons were up 95 percent. In Atlanta, murders were up 62 percent in 2020 from the year before. Aggravated assault was up by 15 percent. In Washington, DC, here, murders were up 22 percent in 2020 from the year before. So far this year, murders are up even more--33 percent so far in 2021 compared to this point last year. Professor Paul Cassell at the University of Utah estimates that reduced policing in dangerous neighborhoods last year caused an additional 1,200 homicides in America's largest cities.

But the problem isn't just with keeping police officers on the force; there is also a problem with getting new ones as well, including in my State of Iowa. Recently, the Des Moines Police Department reported it had received half the applications it did last year. At the county level, the Polk County Sheriff's Office usually gets hundreds of applications for deputy vacancies but recently got only 50 applications. The Council Bluffs Police Department told me at one of my recent county meetings that it was having the same recruiting difficulties.

This is a problem that police departments are having all over the country, with hundreds of vacancies across cities like Louisville, New York, Philadelphia, and Portland. How could this be? Well, for the last year, there has been a lot of hatred and vitriol directed at the police. If a police officer uses excessive force, he or she should suffer the consequences, but it often seems like our national media would have us believe that any use of force by police is unjustified.

Even Members of Congress sometimes join this sort of demagoguery. A month ago, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib tweeted, ``No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can't be reformed.'' Back in January, Congresswoman Cori Bush tweeted, ``Defunding the police isn't radical, it's real.'' This sort of talk is dangerous for people in neighborhoods that depend heavily on police officers to keep them safe.

Law enforcement officers have to make split-second decisions that could be the difference of life or death for themselves or someone they are trying to protect. That is what we train them to do. Sadly, we sometimes need them to use force in order to keep the rest of us safe.

Now, we are used to seeing videos on the internet of police officers using deadly force. But if you want to see really good policing in action, I would suggest people look at another video. It is on the internet. Just do a simple search of ``Los Angeles deputy Mercedes Benz.'' You will come across a video of a Los Angeles sheriff's deputy doing a routine traffic stop of a driver who had been using her phone while behind the wheel. In this video, the driver calls the deputy a ``murderer'' and then mocks him for being Hispanic and taunts him for supposedly wishing he were White. That video will make your stomach turn. But throughout the video, the deputy is courteous and professional. I suspect nearly all enforcement officers conduct themselves and their work in that way. They have a very hard job to do and deal with people who often don't want to deal with the police. Most of them do that job very professionally and respectfully.

I worry that because of the threat of violence, the condemnation by the media, and daily abuses like this one, more and more police officers won't want to do the job anymore. And I worry that more and more young adults won't want to start careers in law enforcement. We need more qualified people who want to be police officers, not fewer.

We can't keep up like this. We can't keep scaring away our police officers while telling the next generations of Americans that cops are evil. They are not evil. They are our friends and neighbors who make a career out of keeping us safe. When the outside world becomes a dangerous place, they show up and we expect them to show up.

The outside world is not going to stop being a dangerous place. Let's make sure cops don't stop showing up. Let's end the war on cops.

On another subject, Madam President, dealing with my oversight work, on March 10 of this year, I came to the floor about my February 11, 2021, oversight letter to the Biden administration's Department of Homeland Security. That letter discussed the administration's withdrawal of what has been called the Confucius rule associated with the country of China and probably more closely related to the Communist Party of China. The rule that was withdrawn was proposed in the Trump administration, and it would have required educational institutions to just simply disclose their financial connection to the Communist Chinese Government, including its Confucius Institutes.

The substance of the rule is common sense, especially in light of the clear propaganda threat that the regime of China presents to us. It is common sense, so why wouldn't the Biden administration continue with it?

In my letter, I ask Secretary Mayorkas two very simple questions:

One, does the Biden Department of Homeland Security consider Confucius Institutes to be an extension of the Chinese Government? If not, why not?

Second question: Does the Biden Department of Homeland Security consider Confucius Institutes to be purveyors of Communist Chinese propaganda? If not, why not?

When I took to the floor on March 10, the Biden administration had failed to respond. As of today, still no response. These are very easy questions for the administration. The failure to answer in light of the ongoing threat is very troubling.

Just the other week, the Justice Department indicted an American professor on two counts of wire fraud and one count of making a false statement for concealing support he received from the Chinese Government. The indictment tells me this administration has concerns about China and our universities, or this action would not have been taken.

During the course of my oversight activities, I have looked at both threats to taxpayer-funded research and threats that Confucius Institutes pose to our educational institutions. Simply put, these are real concerns.

With respect to threats to taxpayer-funded research, we must protect our intellectual property and research. The Chinese are stealing our intellectual property every day. We all know that.

We spend billions of dollars and expend a great amount of effort to bring innovations to this country and, in turn, the world. We must protect our American investments from Chinese espionage and theft.

Likewise, we must guard against the propaganda spread by Confucius Institutes, which are extensions of the Communist regime.

One member of the Communist regime said this:

The Confucius Institute is an appealing brand for expanding

our culture abroad. It has made an important contribution

toward improving our soft power. The ``Confucius'' brand has

a natural attractiveness. Using the excuse of teaching

Chinese language, everything looks reasonable and logical.

Now, I want to quote the Chinese Minister of Propaganda, who said to his fellow ministry workers:

[C]oordinate the efforts of overseas and domestic

propaganda, [and] further create a favorable international

environment for us.

With regard to key issues that influence our sovereignty

and safety, we should actively carry out international

propaganda battles against issues such as Tibet . . . Taiwan,

human rights.

Our strategy is to proactively take our culture abroad. We

should do well in establishing operating overseas cultural

centers and Confucius Institutes.

Why would any American doubt China's purpose for Confucius Institutes based upon the quote of that Minister? Yet, even with this very clear threat, the Biden administration is silent on the proposed rule other than their getting caught retracting that Trump rule. What more does this administration need before they get the picture?

Given the administration's failure to act, I have introduced a bill, S. 1369, that would make the rule that they have withdrawn now a law. My bill, which is cosponsored by Senators Blackburn, Tillis, and Hawley, would require U.S. educational institutions to disclose their financial connections with the Communist Chinese regime. My bill would accomplish these measures by requiring schools to disclose those connections as part of their certification and recertification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. That program provides approvals to schools to enroll nonimmigrant students. If the schools want visas for these foreign students, they will first have to disclose their ties to the Chinese Government.

The centerpiece of the bill I just described is disclosure and transparency, and we all know that transparency brings accountability. We the people absolutely have a right to know if our educational institutions are tied to the hip with China, especially in light of that regime's using money to gain leverage over many of them, which brings me, then, to a greater point. American educational institutions ought to stand up to the Communist regime instead of doing their bidding for the millions of dollars they receive.

China is a national security threat. They are a propaganda machine, and we know they will stop at nothing in their attempt to dominate the world.

It is time for the Biden administration to step up to the plate and protect our American interests and American institutions. If they don't let that rule of the previous administration stay in place or put it back in place, I would urge my colleagues to join my transparency bill.

Mr. President, as I have said many times in the past, Presidents should be given a good deal of discretion when choosing their political appointees, and so long as their nominees are qualified and do not obstruct the advice and consent process, the Senate should not stand in the way of their confirmation.

After all, Presidents are ultimately responsible for the actions of their administration. And if the buck truly stops at the Resolute Desk, they need to be able to trust their subordinates to get the job done.

That being said, I now come to the point of my coming to the floor; that I must vote no on the nomination of Samantha Power to be Director of USAID.

On February 18, I sent a letter to Ms. Power asking questions regarding emails that came out of her office during her time serving as U.N. Ambassador.

Heavily redacted versions of those emails obtained by my office appear to suggest that Ms. Power's staff may have been working behind the scenes to remove the Islamic Relief Agency from the U.S. Treasury Department's sanctions list.

That organization was placed on the sanctions list for what? Funneling money to terrorist groups, and, thus, removing it would allow that organization to receive private donations as well as taxpayer funds.

In her letter responding to my questions, Ms. Power claimed that she was not working to take the Islamic Relief Agency off the sanctions list. She further claimed that the emails in question were part of an effort to challenge false claims made by the Islamic Relief Agency at the U.N. denying their involvement in terrorist financing.

In order to verify her claims, I have requested, on multiple occasions, that she provide unredacted copies of the emails and complete answers to the questions that I posed in my original letter.

But after 3 months, all I have received is a collection of public press releases. I have not received the emails I requested. I have not received answers to my questions.

Normally, political appointees and nominees wait until after they are confirmed to start ignoring congressional inquiries, but in this case, it seems the Executive branch has decided advice and consent is going to be a mere formality, and there is no need to wait. This seems to be a pattern.

For instance, I asked the Secretary of HHS a number of specific questions for the record as part of the Finance Committee vetting process. I received responses that didn't even try to answer the substance of my questions.

I also asked Interior Secretary Deb Haaland to reconcile some conflicting information on her House financial disclosures and responses to questions for the record for the Energy Committee about her taxes. They weren't gotcha questions either. In fact, it was probably innocent mistakes on her part, if anything, but Secretary Haaland declined to respond at all.

Maybe the White House figures simply that they don't need Republican votes so they don't need to answer even routine vetting questions from Republicans, but then the White House can't blame Republicans for voting no on their nominees when they ignore our oversight questions.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am 5 minutes late in coming to the Senate floor. I was supposed to be here on the fentanyl issue to support Senator Cotton. I know that an objection has been raised, but I want people to know how important I think this issue is.

Today, we were considering--hopefully, by unanimous consent--passing a bill to permanently schedule fentanyl substances. Proactively scheduling fentanyl-related substances ought to be a big priority because too many Americans' lives have been lost to reject this critical measure.

Some wrongly assert that controlling fentanyl analogs is partisan and unnecessary. That is simply untrue. Legislation to schedule fentanyl analogs is a bipartisan issue. Just last year, this body passed a bipartisan, 15-month extension bill unanimously. Also, such authority is necessary. The CDC estimates that fentanyl analogs have killed 50,000 Americans in the last 12 months. We must prevent overdose deaths. Prevention is possible when we use our laws to force China to stop the flow of fentanyl analogs.

Opponents of permanent scheduling assert that the authority is broad and could result in too many arrests, but since the Drug Enforcement Administration placed fentanyl analogs in schedule I, the Justice Department has convicted only 80 people under that authority. So too many people being arrested as an argument against their permanent extension is hogwash. This authority hasn't resulted in vast and wide prosecutions; rather, this authority has been targeted and deliberate, and, of course, that is the way it should be.

So if controlling fentanyl analogs is, in fact, bipartisan and necessary, why isn't supporting legislation then a no-brainer? Perhaps because of heightened partisanship, the Democrats can't vote for legislation that helps law enforcement, or maybe they can't be seen as supporting any drug control law even if it could save thousands of lives. This position goes against the unfortunate truth that 50,000 Americans have died from these deadly fentanyl analogs. Politics has no place above human life.

As frustrated as I am by this, it is not my nature to throw in the towel. I will always work hard to find middle ground. That is why I am asking every Senator to support Senator Cotton's permanent extension or, at a minimum, my bill, the Temporary Extension of Fentanyl Scheduling Act. This bipartisan measure extends the authority to schedule fentanyl analogs for 14 months. It keeps fentanyl analogs in schedule I until July 2022, which is long enough for the administration to come to a permanent scheduling solution and allow for a deliberate and transparent dialogue with Congress.

Simply put, we need to give ourselves enough time to find a solution to this major problem causing 50,000 lives to be lost every year. As history shows us, lengthy fentanyl scheduling legislation is not controversial. I am simply asking for a similar, bipartisan approach now. My bill is the only bipartisan temporary extension bill on the table.

I am grateful for Senators Hassan and Shaheen for teaming up with me and Senator Cornyn.

We can't limit ourselves in the fight against fentanyl. It is with this in mind that I urge all of my colleagues to support either a permanent extension or my bipartisan bill and to extend the authority to schedule fentanyl analogs for 14 months.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, I express my support for S. 937, as amended by Senators Hirono and Collins.

Every single one of us is horrified to see our fellow Americans attacked because of their race or ethnicity. We are united in our opposition to this despicable violence and to seeing it investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I have introduced a resolution to this effect and asked for a hearing to learn more about Attorney General Garland's review of hate crimes committed against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

It is good to see my Democratic friends acknowledge that bipartisanship is still the way to solve problems in the Senate. We have come together and, with a bipartisan amendment, improved this bill and made it more useful. We have gone beyond merely looking at COVID- related hate crimes to all hate crimes, and we have increased funding for reporting hate crimes.

I would be remiss if I did not say that more bipartisanship could have made the bill even better. I think a committee markup would have been useful. I think if Democrats had allowed us to bring a Republican amendment extending the Violence Against Women Act for a vote, that would have been useful. Women are suffering from terrible violence during this pandemic, and this was a missed opportunity.

Passing amendments by Senators Kennedy, Cruz, Lee, and Blackburn

would guarantee even more support for marginalized communities, by ensuring Asian Americans are not discriminated against by institutions of higher learning and that religious Americans are free to worship in peace during the pandemic.

But I hope nonetheless that this is a moment where the Senate speaks together about the importance of fighting hate crimes. We all believe that, even though we have different ideas about the best way to do it. This bill is the product of that collaboration. I will be voting for it, and I hope my colleagues will do the same.

Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request relating to the nomination of Samantha Power to be director of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (PN 114).

Throughout the 116th Congress, I conducted an investigation that found that a non-profit organization transferred funds to an entity known as the Islamic Relief Agency (ISRA). This entity had been sanctioned by the Treasury Department for helping funnel funds to terrorists and terrorist organizations including Osama Bin Laden. During this investigation we came across redacted State Department emails that imply that, while she was

Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power worked through back channels to trigger a Treasury review of ISRA's sanctioned status in an effort to have them delisted.

In an effort to have these emails un-redacted and better understand Ms. Power's involvement in what could be an alarming abuse of power, I sent a letter to Ms. Power and USAID requesting information on February 18, 2021. Ms. Power responded to my letter on March 23, 2021, the date of her committee hearing, but failed to answer the questions or provide the un-redacted versions of these emails. On March 31, 2021, I sent a second letter to Ms. Power urging her to fully respond to my initial letter. I have yet to receive a response.

Unfortunately, due to Ms. Power's lack of transparency, I must object to any consideration of this nomination. I cannot in good conscience vote for Ms. Power until I have received a full response to the questions posed in my letter, reviewed the un-redacted versions of these emails, and confirmed that she did not attempt to utilize her office to delist ISRA through back channels.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, today I come to the floor to talk about what is very obvious on television--the crisis at the southern border.

During the past several months, the American people have watched as a full-blown crisis has developed. It has reached a catastrophic phase, and it is not getting any better.

Let me reemphasize that whatever the Biden administration wants to call it, it is a crisis. Simply put, the administration is in denial, and that denial has caused a humanitarian and national crisis. For example, border crossings are at the highest level we have seen in the last 15 years. Last month, Customs and Border Patrol, Border Protection, encountered more than 170,000 people attempting to cross at the southern border. That number includes almost 19,000 unaccompanied children, which is the highest number ever recorded in a single month.

The surge has overwhelmed personnel and prompted the Biden administration to put out--would you believe this?--emergency calls for volunteers. They did that from across the Federal Government. According to news reports based on recent Biden administration emails, the administration is recruiting NASA employees to sit with children at border facilities. Really? That is NASA. The border crisis is so bad that the Biden administration is trying to pull people from NASA and place them at the border.

My fellow Senators, this situation is out of control. This is a humanitarian and national security crisis. Terrorists, smugglers, criminals have seen this as their golden opportunity, and they are surely taking advantage of it.

This can't continue. I have written to the Biden administration. I have visited the border in person. I have seen overwhelmed facilities. I have heard the calls of the cartel members and human traffickers yelling insults from across the Rio Grande, taunting Senators--yes, taunting Senators.

Senator Cornyn and I have written to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee strongly urging him to hold border security hearings. During the Trump administration, while I served as chairman of the full committee and Senator Cornyn served as subcommittee chairman, we held no less than 15 hearings on oversight of the Department of Homeland Security and various aspects of our immigration policy. As chairman of the committee during the first 2 years of the Trump administration, I held hearings on immigration topics of bipartisan interest to all committee members, including Democratic committee members. Those hearings included oversight of family reunification efforts and the Trump administration's decision to end DACA programs.

In that very same way, I am hopeful that Chairman Durbin will be willing to hold hearings on matters of great importance to me and committee members on both sides of the aisle. I am ready to work with him to put together hearings that address these problems productively.

During the Easter recess, I instructed my oversight and investigative staff to get a classified briefing from the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That briefing provided important and time-sensitive information that further solidifies my belief that the Biden administration's border crisis is a national security problem.

Moreover, the Biden administration's denial that there is a border crisis is itself a national security problem. You can't solve a problem if you refuse to admit that there is such a problem existing. This head-in-the-sand attitude will cost lives. That is what is so sad about the situation. It is not making anyone's life any better. In fact, it is putting lives at risk, American lives and immigrant lives. Yet the administration refuses to solve the problem.

Earlier this month, I requested that the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, after briefing my investigative staff, that they brief the full Judiciary Committee, Republicans and Democrats, on a member level. Members need to fully understand the national security problems at the border with respect to terrorists, narcoterrorists, human smugglers, and every one of their criminal counterparts. We must also be fully read in to the methods and means that they use to plan and accomplish their criminal goals.

Yesterday, in response to my request of these Agencies, the committee had that briefing. What we learned is that the crisis at the border is getting worse, and bad actors are expanding their technological edge to become more efficient at accomplishing their criminal goals. Human smuggling networks, cartels, and other bad actors are continuing to take full advantage of the crisis.

As to where we go from here, the Biden administration knows it has a crisis on its hands. It is time to stop the denial and act now to solve this border crisis

Information Sharing

Mr. President, on another issue, I would like to address my fellow Senators. This deals with counterfeits and the need for the Federal Government to modernize its approach to information sharing.

Counterfeits pose a danger to the health and safety of consumers. They also infringe on U.S. intellectual property rights and unfairly benefit international criminals.

This will come as no surprise to anyone: The majority of fake goods come from China and Hong Kong. And the United States? Well, we are the biggest loser when it comes to our intellectual property-related crime and activity.

Unfortunately, the problem of counterfeits has gotten worse during the pandemic. Americans have increasingly turned to e-commerce to buy goods like personal protective equipment, household products, as well as household cleaners, children's toys, and a lot of other items I won't list. Criminals use the same e-commerce sites to sell their bogus goods. These sites give criminals an air of legitimacy and make it harder for law enforcement to catch them. E-commerce sites also let criminals create multiple product listings that can trick consumers into purchasing fake goods.

Unfortunately, when there is money to be made, criminals will find out how to profit and do it at the expense of others, even in the event of a global pandemic. However, there is some good news. We have ways of addressing the problem.

Last week, I introduced legislation that will give U.S. Customs and Border Protection more authority to share information with rights holders and other interested parties on suspected counterfeit merchandise. This is an issue I first identified as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee when I investigated counterfeit goods sold online. During this investigation, I discovered that certain U.S. laws prevent Customs and Border Protection from sharing key pieces of information with their private sector partners. As a result, it is harder for Customs and Border Protection and its private sector partners to detect and disrupt counterfeiting networks. If they could work together and the law allowed it, it would be a lot easier to tackle the problems.

To give credit where it is due, Customs and Border Protection has recognized this problem and is taking steps to rectify it through the 21st Century Customs Framework--for short, 21CCF--to improve data- sharing capabilities in real time. However, without statutory authority from Congress, in some ways, Customs and Border Protection has one hand tied behind its back. So my bill will get rid of some of these barriers for the Agency. It is one small but very crucial step toward a more secure supply chain.

Sharing information is a simple solution that often gets overlooked. However, it can be an effective tool in creating comprehensive strategy against counterfeit activity. So I am asking my colleagues to join me in making this legislative fix so that we may create a supply chain that addresses a 21st-century problem.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, on April 13, I delivered remarks on the Senate Floor to share my condolences for Iowa State Patrol Sergeant Jim Smith, who lost his life in the line of duty. I was honored to attend Sergeant Smith's funeral on April 16 in Independence. Jim Smith was revered as a man of strong convictions, love of family, and deep- rooted faith. Iowa State Patrol Colonel Nathan Fulk gave the following eulogy in honor of Sergeant Smith. I ask unanimous consent that the eulogy be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, right now, I just want to speak about the motion to discharge as opposed to whether people should vote for or against Gupta.

I am opposed to this effort to discharge Gupta from the Judiciary Committee. In fact, it is not properly in order. In theory, we are moving this nomination because it failed in Committee by an even, tie vote. But that vote should never have been called, and it was improper when it was.

Under the committee rules, members have a right to unlimited debate. This can only be stopped either by a bipartisan vote to end debate under the rules or by a vote of the majority of the committee to set a time certain to vote under precedent. Because Republicans at Ms. Gupta's markup wanted

to talk, there couldn't have been a bipartisan vote to end debate. In fact, some, like my colleagues from North Carolina, didn't have a chance to speak and were still waiting their turn. And because the Democrats don't have a majority in the committee, they couldn't have set a time certain.

Under the rules and precedents of the committee, then, they had to let Republicans talk, and if it took more than one markup, so be it. The Democrats did this talkathon when I was chairman. During our second markup of 2017, in order to delay Senator Sessions' nomination to be Attorney General, Democrats filibustered in the Judiciary Committee. When it happened, I didn't interrupt anyone or break any rules. I simply continued the markup the next day, checking to see who would want to be recognized and for how long.

The fact is that the Democrats frequently used these filibuster tactics against us over the past 4 years. We simply dealt with them from a position of confidence in the rules and precedents of our committee. Sometimes being chairman and moving nominees takes hard work, but we did the job we needed to do.

That is not what happened in the discussion of Gupta. Instead, my colleague from Arkansas was interrupted and the roll was called while he was still speaking.

This was not the power of the majority being used. It was the power of the chairman. What is the point of having rules if you can just ignore them--just ignore them when you find yourself dealing with an unfamiliar situation.

So I don't think the even vote--the tie vote--in committee even properly happened. As far as I am concerned, Senator Cotton had the floor. That rollcall vote was illegitimate under committee rules, and so the one that we are going to have in the Senate this afternoon is just as illegitimate.

And why did the Chairman scrap the committee rules for this nominee? This isn't a Supreme Court nomination. The nominee is a sub-Cabinet official at the Justice Department. So I have to wonder why. I think it is because the Democrats know how really powerful she will be in the Justice Department

As Judge Garland told us during his hearing, he didn't pick Ms. Gupta. He only got to know her after they were both picked. That is quite a position for a subordinate to be in.

The late Congressman Dingell famously said this--and I will clean it up a bit: ``You let me write the precedent, and I'll [beat] . . . you every time.''

The Judiciary Committee has done him one better: Now there is no procedure.

If the rules are not respected, the Senate is an institution that loses every time.

I urge my colleagues to vote no and protect the traditions of the body.

Madam President, today I express my concern over the rise in violent crime and in particular the hate crimes against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

Every single one of us ought to be horrified to see our fellow Americans attacked because of their race or ethnicity. We are united in our opposition to this hateful violence. We are united in seeing it investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I introduced a resolution to this effect, and I will welcome all my Senate colleagues to join me.

I am very happy to see that Attorney General Garland has turned his attention to this problem. On March 30, he directed the Department of Justice to engage in a 30-day review of the Department's response to hate crimes. I hope the Senate will benefit from the results of that review. However, our responses to the problem of hate crimes must be guided by the facts and a pursuit of sound policy. I am not sure that we have done the legwork to arrive at a legislative solution that will make a difference to preventing, deterring, and punishing these crimes.

Along with my colleague Senator Cotton, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice and Counterterrorism, we are requesting a full or subcommittee hearing on the issue, and we should do that after the Attorney General's review has been completed.

We now have before the Senate S. 937, the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, being introduced before the Attorney General's review began and appears to be duplicative or even in conflict with some of the DOJ's existing efforts. This does not seem to me to be the best path, but that is the path the Senate is on now, and I voted to proceed hours ago to S. 937. I am thankful that it is coming up. I know that Members of the Republican caucus have amendments that will hopefully improve the bill and make it a very useful piece of legislation.

We hope these amendments will be listened to and fairly considered by our Democratic colleagues. This is too important of an issue to get wrong.

Election Security

Madam President, now, on another point. Between Democrats who believe Russia rigged the vote to elect Trump in 2016 and Republicans who believe various theories questioning Biden's election victory, they all add up to what seems to be a bipartisan supermajority of Americans casting doubt about our elections. In fact, one prominent claim by some Trump supporters that a particular brand of voting machine switched Trump votes to Biden appears to have been plagiarized from the Democratic Party's playbook from the election of 2004.

I heard from many left-leaning Iowans at that time who questioned President Bush's victory based on claims that a particular brand of voting machine switched votes in Ohio. That was 2004. It seems kind of similar, doesn't it, today.

Those totally unsubstantiated claims ultimately led Democrats to force a vote in a joint session of Congress in 2005 to reject Ohio's electoral votes cast for President Bush. There are still Democratic Members of Congress in both Chambers who voted to overturn Ohio State's certified election in 2004.

Now, after the 2018 gubernatorial election in Georgia, the losing Democratic candidate refused to concede, claiming, without evidence that would stand up in court, that she, as a Democratic candidate for Governor of Georgia, would have won but for voting irregularities. Now, rather than distance itself from questioning a certified election in 2018, the Democratic Party invited her to speak at their convention in 2020.

Two years later, the tables are now turned. Trump lost Georgia by a far smaller margin than that Democratic candidate for Governor in Georgia in 2018 did, but we are now told that to suggest that there were flaws in the 2020 Georgia election is somehow unacceptable and undermining democracy.

It is pretty obvious, after this history, that we need to break the cycle of partisans questioning elections when their side lost or it is OK to complain when their side lost, but if the other side does the same thing, there is something wrong with it. So there is a lesson for both Republicans and Democrats. Both parties must stop finger-pointing, stop blaming, and stop the partisan accusations. We all need to work together to restore Americans' faith in elections.

So that brings me to something very current because it passed the House of Representatives. So that brings me to the Democrats' so-called For the People Act. Incidentally, don't you find that name a little creepy? So often in history, when people claim to speak for ``the people,'' they were just seeking power.

For the People Act was introduced after the 2018 elections as a clear political statement to build the hyperpartisan narrative that Democratic defeats were due to widespread voter suppression.

Now, we always hear about voter suppression before and since the 2020 election, but just think of the historic turnout--not only the historic turnout that the losing candidate had but the historic turnout that the winning candidate had. And yet we have voter suppression.

H.R. 1 was then, and remains, a hastily cobbled together collection of every Democratic proposal for new election mandates. No care was taken to make it cohesive or workable. It is evident that State and local election officials were not consulted in its drafting.

You know, just to consider the size of the bill, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, I think, was only two pages. For the People Act, the bill introduced--or heard--before the Senate Rules Committee is 800 pages.

Now, that bill that I just talked about had actually passed the House in 2019 on party lines and was placed directly on the Senate calendar at Senator Schumer's request. Now, this is very typical of political messaging bills so the minority leader can force a vote to proceed. I assume, in 2019, that Senator Schumer did not force the Senate vote to take up the bill because partisan activists got more traction out of blaming Leader McConnell for not bringing it up. Regardless, in 2019, it was clearly designed as a messaging bill and not one designed to ever get to the President's desk.

Now, in 2021, we are back at it again, considering a totally partisan messaging bill that would radically rework all States' election systems, where it has been in the Constitution the primary concern of the State legislators and Congress seldomly intervening. I suppose the most obvious is that on a certain date in November we all have Presidential elections and congressional elections on the same date in all 50 States, but beyond that, it is pretty much up to each State how they want to conduct their elections.

So how does this bill, passing the House, once again, over here in the Senate--how does that jibe with the message from Democrats just a couple of months ago that State-run elections are beyond reproach? Don't you remember? Because all 50 States had State-certified elections, that gave Biden his win.

Now, it is pretty common sense. Either State-run elections are fundamentally flawed and unfair, requiring massive Federal intervention and Americans who question the outcome are taking a moral stand, or State-run elections are, by and large, very fair, and Americans can have confidence in the outcomes.

Either way, the same principle should apply to the last several elections whether Republicans or Democrats were relatively more successful in each case. I get it. I get it that having unleashed this partisan tiger--the bill that came from the House of Representatives-- it is very hard to get that partisan tiger back in the cage.

But when this bill fails, as it must, we need to tamp down the partisan accusations and work across party lines to restore faith in American elections. Now, the way the environment here is in Washington and in Congress, it isn't going to be easy, but the alternative is unthinkable

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a short tribute and then maybe about an 8- or 9-minute speech that I have.

Today, I want to pay tribute to Iowa State Patrol Sergeant Jim Smith, who courageously gave his life in the line of duty this past Friday.

Sergeant Smith, a 27-year Iowa State Patrol veteran and a tactical team leader, put himself in harm's way on behalf of his fellow Iowans last week, and it cost him everything.

Sergeant Smith is being remembered as a dedicated father, a loyal public servant, a man of God who left a positive impression on everybody he encountered.

I mourn for his family, fellow troopers, friends, and the entire Independence, IA, community at this tragic loss.

Madam President, I have one short issue and another issue of about 10 minutes.

Over the Easter break, I held a Q&A in 24 counties to hear what was on the minds of Iowans. It was my constituents' agenda, not my agenda, that we discussed. From my cattle market transparency bill to Second Amendment issues, COVID-19 vaccines, and the crisis at the southern border, Iowans are always up to date on the issues most important to them.

One prominent question: Why can't you guys in the Senate get along? In other words, ``Why not more bipartisanship?'' is a constant question I get.

Iowans want Congress to work in a bipartisan way to enhance our Nation's infrastructure through increased funding for roads, bridges, highways, waterways, and rural broadband, among many other infrastructure issues.

Unfortunately, what I have heard so far about President Biden's plan is that it is everything but the kitchen sink and not enough focus on just the big, big issue and the long-term issue of infrastructure.

Iowans expect us to work in a bipartisan way, and I hope Democrats will agree to work together with us, unlike the passage of the $1.9 trillion bill.

Madam President, I want to come to the floor to bring up four subjects. The first one is 30 seconds.

Madam President, we hear from Democrats that they want to do things in a bipartisan way. Last year, Senator Wyden and I developed a bipartisan bill that would save the taxpayers $95 billion and reduce the cost of prescription drugs.

Everybody wants that. President Trump wanted it, President Biden wanted it, and there is no reason why in 1 week we couldn't get that bill passed. We don't have to wait until several weeks down the road to do something like that.

It didn't come up last Congress because both Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell were against it. It is bipartisan. We ought to move on that.

(The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 949 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.''