Floor Statements

Madam President, per an agreement that was reached with my colleagues, Dr. Eric Lander, the President's nominee for the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy was not subject to a rollcall vote on the Senate floor, but was instead considered under a voice vote.

I would like to be on the record that I am opposed to the nomination of Dr. Lander. As OSTP Director, Dr. Lander will advise the President and the administration on all the scientific, technological, and engineering aspects of Federal policy, including Federal research. Dr. Lander should receive even further scrutiny for this position after President Biden has chosen to elevate the Director of the OSTP to a Cabinet-level position.

This nomination comes at a critical time as the Senate seeks to pass the Endless Frontier Act, which would increase Federal scientific research and development funding--imprudently in my opinion--by over $100 billion. As I have weighed the nomination of Dr. Lander both in the Senate Commerce Committee and in the weeks leading up to his consideration by the full Senate, Dr. Lander has failed to provide the guarantees that he supports appropriate guardrails around federally funded research, including protections for unborn life through the prohibition of experimenting with aborted fetal tissue, embryonic stem cells, or live embryos.

With the consideration of the Endless Frontier Act and the greater role that OSTP will take in directing the direction of our Federal research and development, I am very concerned that Dr. Lander has not assured me that he will put in place protections for the unborn or institute appropriate ethical guardrails to protect such life.

For these reasons, I opposed the nomination of Dr. Lander.

Mr. President, I have significant concerns with this legislation. I have made no ambiguity about that. I have been very clear from the outset that this bill concerns me, in part because it involves an attempt by the United States of America to compete with China but on terms that don't favor us, on a playing field that isn't

ours, and in areas that play to our weaknesses, not our strengths. We ought to be playing to our strengths and not our weaknesses. Unfortunately, this bill does not get it right.

But separate and apart from my concerns regarding the merits of this legislation, which we will get back to in a moment, I want to talk for a moment about the procedural concerns that I have had. There have been a number of people in the Senate arguing over the last few hours--some in the Senate Chamber, some in the media--that we have had a very thorough floor process; that this has been regular order at its best.

I appreciate the fact that we have had 2 weeks of floor consideration time; 2 weeks, that is, on Senate time, which is just not 2 actual weeks. It is not 2 calendar weeks, not even 2 business weeks. It is a shorter subset of that. But never mind, it is a good thing that we at least had 2 weeks set aside to do this on the Senate floor. So that is a good thing.

It is not sufficient, however, to suggest that because we have had hundreds of amendments filed and because we have had a number of votes on amendments and because a few weeks have elapsed since this bill came out of committee, that that somehow means it is regular order and regular order of a sort that we ought to try to replicate.

You have to remember that regular order needs to be evaluated. It needs to be measured against several things. In other words, a simple resolution designating National Sofa Care Month probably need not receive a lot of floor time or a lot of opportunities for amendments, but the more substantive and the more costly, economically or otherwise, a particular bill might be, the more demanding regular order ought to be.

Regular order is not satisfied, particularly in a bill like this one that is likely to cost $200 billion or more and that is 2,000-plus pages long and that deals with some very significant geopolitical and economic issues--it is not something that you can really call regular order, when you are addressing a bill like that, when you are constantly making changes to it.

We talked last night about the fact that this legislation started out in committee a few weeks ago. It started out in committee where, I believe, it was somewhere in the range of 150 to 200 pages. It came out of committee, and it was longer than that; it was a few hundred pages. Then, over time, it has gotten bigger. It grew to 14- or 1,500 pages. By yesterday afternoon, it had grown an additional 900 pages, and then by 10:59 p.m. last night, it grew by a few hundred more pages. It is not just the addition of an additional page of text that triggers more concern. One has to understand how the entire piece of legislation interacts, how nefarious provisions, including the late-breaking amendments that we received for the first time at 10:59 p.m. last night--how those affect everything else.

Just as importantly, one has to, ought to, certainly have the ability to communicate to one's constituents what is in the legislation, seeking input from them so that any votes can be informed by having the voters informed and having them aware of what is in the legislation. One cannot make very significantly drastic changes to legislation in the middle of the night and then claim that it is regular order and that regular order demands an immediate vote on that measure.

What I and a number of my colleagues have been focused on, as we debated this through the night and starting early this morning when we reconvened, has been simple. We just want more time before being asked to vote on this measure.

It is not an unreasonable request, given that you are dealing with legislation that is over 2,000 pages long and that is likely to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of a quarter of a trillion dollars. That is a lot of money, and the way in which we spend it will undoubtedly have profound implications not just for years but for decades to come.

We need to, we ought to, we really must endeavor to understand what exactly this is going to do. In order to do that, we have to have text, and that does, in fact, matter. It is not something you can easily dismiss as an argument that says this has been regular order because it has been on the Senate floor for 2 weeks. When it changes as much as this one has, it expands as much as this one has, when it is as long as this one is and involves this amount of money and this many very significant far-reaching ramifications, it is not unreasonable for us to want more time to vote on it, to consider it, to seek public input, and to allow the American people to know what is in it before we cast our votes. It is a simple common courtesy that we ought to have extended to ourselves automatically, rather than trying to rush to a final vote in the dark of night.

On the merits of the legislation itself, it is important to remember that we got here because we are at something of a crossroads with China. We have all kinds of potential threats--some of them economic in nature, some perhaps cultural, some perhaps military, and some maybe involve cyber security.

But we have an awkward relationship with China, and it is one that we have to be focused on. That is why it is not a bad thing, in and of itself, that we consider legislation to try to deal with that. That doesn't mean that every piece of legislation designed to deal with the problem is, itself, something that must be passed.

You see, if we are going to try to pass something telling the American people that what we are passing will lead to a better outcome with China and our ability to compete with China--if we are going to make that argument, then we have to be able to back that up. In order to be able to back that up, we have to put ourselves in a position where we can be our best selves, where we know we are poised for success. We have to consider exactly what kind of strategy we are deploying, what kind of competitor we want to be.

The legislation before us--the legislation that has been renamed but started out and to this moment includes the Endless Frontier Act--is something that aims to counter China, primarily by boosting technology research and development. I think it is fair to say that is its primary aim.

This is something that nobody dislikes. Nobody dislikes research and development. To my knowledge, these are good things and, undoubtedly, our ability to compete with China will depend on the nature and extent of our investments in research and development.

But that does beg the question, What is the best kind of research and development? Is it best when it follows from, and is directed by, it could be modified along the way as a result of self-interest, rightly understood--enlightened self-interest--free markets, the decisions of individuals who have something at stake or is it best when government acts, when government directs it, when it is done by Federal bureaucrats instead of innovators, technology experts, and people who have something that belongs to them--an idea, an ability to make something--people who actually know how to see their ideas all the way through to the end and are willing to make the necessary sacrifices along the way to see to its success?

You see, when you start to confuse government research and development with actual research and development--that is private nongovernmental research and development--you run into some problems.

Some of this, I think, perhaps stems from a misapprehension, a misunderstanding of the nature of government itself and the capabilities of government in any system to do things

We have to remember that government, ultimately, is best understood as the official use of coercive force. That is what government is. It is force--force with the perimeter of official authority, force and taxation backed up by force. That is what government is.

I don't mean to say that in a dismissive way. We need government. Government can't operate without force. It can't collect taxes without force. It can't enforce laws without force. We need government for that reason--to make sure, first and foremost, that we don't hurt each other, that we aren't harmed by outside aggressors who would harm us, and that we don't take that which doesn't belong to us. We need governments to do that. Only governments can do that. That is why we have governments.

Political philosophers going back centuries, including many of those who influenced the founding of the United

States of America, who influenced the documents, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, those who influenced the waging of America's Revolutionary War understood that, at a fundamental level, the purpose of government is to protect life and liberty and property.

You see, if we left individuals to do that on their own, they might be able to do that, but human flourishing really wouldn't occur in that circumstance. If everyone had to be the law for him or herself, human nourishing wouldn't occur. When government exists, it frees people. It frees them, not just because freedom sounds great in the abstract or because it is fun to yell at a rally or it looks good on a bumper sticker, but we like freedom because of the things that free people do when they are allowed to be free, when they are able to come together and form what I refer to as the ``twin pillars'' of American exceptionalism. In fact, I would go so far as to call them the twin pillars of any thriving human civilization. Those twin pillars are free markets and voluntary institutions of civil society.

When you have robust free markets and voluntary institutions of civil society, human beings do better. They can't, of course, function in a state of anarchy nor can they function in the absence of a government because that always involves anarchy necessarily.

But when there is government and that government properly understands its role of protecting life, liberty, and property, it is freeing and liberating, and human beings in that setting can do amazing things. It is what has led to the development of the greatest civilization of the strongest economy the world has ever known. It is what has led more people out of poverty than any government program ever can, ever could, ever has, or ever will.

When we lose sight of what government is, when we start to forget that government is just force and taxation backed up by the use of force, it can easily be manipulated for nefarious ends. It is not that government is bad. Government isn't inherently good or evil. Government consists of that principle of force backed up with the legitimacy of the imprimatur of the State or, in our case, a union of States.

It is that force that is necessary. That same force that is necessary can become destructive of the very ends that it was created in order to uphold and protect and defend, so we can't lose sight of it. We can't lose sight of the fact that government is neither inherently good nor inherently evil. Government doesn't have eyes to see you. It doesn't have arms to embrace you. It doesn't have a heart with which to love you. It is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, not all-knowing, not all- powerful. It just is force and taxation backed up by force.

So the further afield you take government authority and you take it away from the protection of life, liberty, and property, quite ironically and very tragically, it can become destructive of the very ends that it was created to serve.

One of the ways in which we see this manifest from time to time is when people will harness the immense power of government and the immense financial resources that can be accumulated by a government through the power of taxation backed up by force for their own political ends--even worse, for their own economic ends. When you see people's political ends marrying up with the financial interests of those who want to capitalize off of government itself, bad things can happen.

Ultimately, the American people become poorer as a result of government action; that is, every dollar that we spend is a dollar that won't otherwise be spent--could otherwise be spent in the free market doing good, resulting in everything from charitable contributions to job creation, and many, many other things that support our ability to be free and prosperous as a nation.

China, importantly, doesn't quite see it this way. They didn't get the memo. They are not steeped in Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu. They are not steeped in the stories that we know about our American Revolution.

They weren't raised understanding that their country became a country as a result of their conscious choice to depart from a mother country after that mother country had proven itself to be menacing, had proven itself to be a government that was taxing them too much, regulating them too aggressively, sending them off to war, then making them pay for those wars, all without allowing them fair representation within that system of government. They weren't steeped in that.

They were steeped in different traditions, and they have chosen a very different set of paths. They have, essentially, a command-and- control economy. That is what a country that is run by a Communist Party does; it commands and it controls. It is a very different mindset.

It is a mindset that focuses not on free markets and civil society. In that kind of system, in a system run by a Communist Party, with a command-and-control economy, the state is everything. The government is imbued culturally with almost a sense of reverence, entitled to deference. People assume--or they are at least asked to assume, and many are forced to play along with the assumption--that it has a degree of omniscience, omnipotence, and always the best interests of the people; the ability to foresee and prepare for the future and use the immense force of government to bring about their aims. In every single respect, the Chinese regime grows and centralizes the power of government always at the expense of free markets and free citizens. This is an experiment that has expanded into dangerous and even deadly territory.

Let's just consider, for a moment, China's record on human rights. China has gone so far as to enslave and subject the Tibetan and Uighur people into forced labor, reeducation, and torture.

Under China's infamous one-child policy, it has brutally and barbarically forced families to undergo IUD implantation, sterilization, and abortion.

China, of course, has a long, dark history of religious persecution and of silencing dissidents of every stripe. Under President Xi Jinping, Chinese authorities have detained millions of Muslims and arrested thousands of Christians. They have seized control of Tibetan monasteries and closed or demolished dozens of Buddhist and Taoist temples.

You see, the destruction of sacred places not built by the government, not designed by the government seems to be a hallmark characteristic of Communist systems because sacred places must be for the betterment of the government, and if they are not, Communist regimes don't like them and often do everything they can to destroy them and the communities that formed them. They have even practiced forced organ harvesting of members of the Falun Gong religion.

Or consider China's actions in the realm of foreign policy. In true imperialist form, it is pushing its Belt and Road Initiative--a massive, predatory infrastructure project, stretching from East Asia to Europe, designed to massively expand its coercive economic and political influence.

It has spread Confucius Institutes across American campuses, entangling American universities with Chinese state policies, and turning them into megaphones for Chinese propaganda.

In multilateral organizations, China continuously undermines longstanding democratic norms, instituting policies that, instead, benefit the Chinese Communist Party's authoritarian values. It has also held a tight cronyist, command-and-control grip over its economy, heavily subsidizing industries with money that it has taken through its power of taxation, backed up by its use of force, ultimately picking winners and losers, which tend to be more reflective of those close to leadership within the Chinese Communist Party than those who build a better product or work better to serve their fellow beings.

While China has picked up some steam through these actions, we must not--we can't ever--ignore that whatever momentum it may have acquired is of dubious success and doubtful sustainability over the long run. China, under the control of the Chinese Communist Party, has, in reality, one of the least efficient economies in the world. In terms of GDP per capita, it is not at the top of the heap. In fact, one could say that it is very close to the bottom of the heap, next to Cuba and Kazakhstan.

It turns out that political corruption and state-owned enterprises come with

some financial dead weight too. Now, the financial costs alone of enslaving, sterilizing, and brainwashing 12.8 million Uighurs and other oppressed groups is steep, even as the human cost of this indefensible moral depravity is far worse and infinitely steeper.

Of course, killing future generations' potential through abortion is also as foolish as it is inhumane. As a result of its decades-long abortion and one-child or two-child policy, China is on track to lose a third of its workforce--a third--and age out faster than any society in modern history. The ratio of workers to retirees in China, which is currently 8 to 1, is projected to whittle down to just 2 to 1 in the coming decades, with only two employees for every retiree. China's pension system, which is already showing very significant signs of buckling, will inevitably crack under pressure.

Now, it is true that China is aggressive, and it is true that China is really big, but it is not ironclad in its position of global strength. As its population ages more and more and as more of its land falls into wasted, polluted squalor, it will have neither the inhabitants nor the resources to continue on its current course.

There is nothing about China's principles or China's trajectory that we should seek to emulate--no, not in the slightest. In nearly every single way, the Chinese regime consolidates power to trample over the rights of men and women and quash free expression, the free exercise of religion, and free enterprise.

All of us in America who know of our own struggles know of the bad things that can happen when human beings and governments combine to take undo advantage of difficult circumstances of minorities, whether racial, ethnic, in language, religious, or otherwise. Bad things happen. China has not only allowed bad things to happen; it has made them happen. It has directed that they happen. It has been the reason that they happen.

Nothing could be more antithetical to the American system of government or to the American way of life or to our values. In fact, it is just the opposite formula that has made us the greatest civilization the world has ever known, with the strongest economy, with the greatest opportunities, with immense, upward economic mobility. This is uniquely a land in which someone can be born into poverty and, in most circumstances, carry the reasonable hope and expectation that, if one works hard, one day, one can retire comfortably.

The Founders gave us a Constitution precisely to disperse and limit the power of the Federal Government and to keep the power in government as close and accountable to the people as possible. We focus on this, and we focus on principles of freedom and of liberty, not just because they sound nice. We do these things because it is how human beings thrive. We do these things because it is the best way to protect life and liberty and property. We do these things because it is the only way to allow for upward economic mobility and the thriving of the human condition.

We should continue to double down on those things. We should continue to make sure that our markets are free and that our institutions of civil society are voluntary and robust. We do that not by expanding government but by allowing human beings to do what they do best and by allowing them to be free.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, one of the bills in question--specifically, H.R. 478, would direct the Secretary of the Interior to take 55.3 acres of land owned by the Gila River Indian Community into trust.

The Gila River Indian Community Reservation is already 583 square miles, with a population of 11,000. The Gila River Indian Community already owns this land, so why we need to take more land into trust and have the Federal Government more involved in the management of the land is not immediately obvious or apparent to me. The answer is not at all clear as to why it needs to be in trust.

Trust land responsibilities for the Federal Government are significant and before we expand the size of our trust lands, we have to have an understanding of what we are doing and the actual need to do it

Proponents of this legislation have claimed that the Tribe has a unique history with this particular plot of land--this particular 55.3 acres of land--adjacent to the trust land. But from the history shown, the Tribe's interaction with the land is mostly that they have had friendly neighbors with whom they have traded goods.

As many of my colleagues are aware, I have great concerns that I have quite consistently expressed with further expanding the Federal Government's management or involvement in public lands, including trust lands.

Nevertheless, I have been engaging in negotiations, and I have made a number of good-faith efforts to develop a possible path forward--one in which the amount of acreage owned or held in trust by the Federal Government would not grow, while taking this land into trust for the Gila River Indian Community. While I continue to negotiate a path forward, I am not inclined to abandon this concern. This is a negotiation that has been in progress.

That said, with respect to the part of the request dealing specifically with S. 789, the RESPECT Act, I am willing to let that go. But if the request is to pass both of these by unanimous consent, I can't support that, and on that basis, I object.

I fully am amenable to that, with the RESPECT Act

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I just want to reiterate again what we have dealt with.

As originally introduced, the bill was 160 pages. Yes, it ran through committee. Then it went out of committee, and it was reported out by the committee at 730 pages. Then you had the May 19 substitute--1,445 pages--and you had a substitute today that took it up to over 2,300 pages. Then at 10:59 p.m., just a little over an hour and a half ago, we received notice of this managers' package. The list that we received is a simple list of numbers attached to last names. It doesn't contain the text of those; it just contains references back to other amendments--10:59 p.m. We still don't know exactly how long that is.

Yet people are fond of saying, well, as I believe my colleague from Washington said a minute ago, people have been talking about this for hours. What does that even mean? It is not the same as presenting an amendment, saying this will be presented as a package.

Keep in mind, these aren't just mere sequential pages, pieces of paper. Every time you add another piece of paper, every time you add an amendment, it

gets a lot more complicated because you have to know not just what each page says but how it interacts with every other page.

Although this is how it came out of committee, this is the rest of the bill as it existed as of early this morning. As of this afternoon, we added about another 900 pages to it. Then at 10:59, again, just about an hour and a half ago, we received an as-yet-to-be-ascertained managers' package that we still haven't seen in its entirety. We have just seen a list, and we are told that we have to vote on that right now.

Look, the American people understand that when you are throwing around hundreds of billions of dollars at a time, we really have an obligation to know what on Earth we are voting for. We don't know that. We can't credibly maintain that. We certainly shouldn't pretend to be competent to understand everything that is in here.

I find it absolutely stunning--I find it disappointing more than anything that in response to the very reasonable request made by my friend and distinguished colleague from Wisconsin to give us 3 hours to look at it, that even that was too much.

This, Mr. President, is too much for the American people, and I object.

Mr. President, the United States is at a crossroads in our strategy to counter the threat posed by Communist China. It is vital that we place ourselves in a position to compete with China, to be sure, but it is equally important that we consider just what kind of game we are playing and just what kind of competitor we aspire to be.

The bill before us, the Endless Frontier Act, aims to counter China primarily by boosting technology research and development. No doubt, these are important components of any strategy to counter China, but, unfortunately, it goes about it in the exact wrong way--trying to beat China at its own game and taking us across a frontier that we ought never to traverse. In fact, models of some of China's own bad strategies are emulated in this legislation, strategies that are in exact opposition--direct opposition--to American principles and American ways of life.

Let's consider some of the hallmarks of communist China. In every aspect, the Chinese regime grows and centralizes the power of government at the expense of free citizens and free markets--an experiment that has expanded into dangerous and even deadly territory. Take, for example, China's record on human rights.

China has gone so far as to enslave and subject the Tibetan and Uighur people to forced labor, reeducation, and torture. Under China's infamous one-child policy, it has brutally and barbarically forced families to undergo IUD implantation, complete sterilization, and abortion.

It has a long, dark history of religious persecution and of silencing dissidents. Under President Xi Jinping, Chinese authorities have detained millions of Muslims and arrested thousands of Christians. They have seized control of Tibetan monasteries and closed or demolished dozens of Buddhist and Taoist temples. They have even practiced forced organ harvesting of members of the Falun Gong religion.

Or consider China's actions in the realm of foreign policy.

In true imperialist form, China is pushing its Belt and Road Initiative--a massive, predatory infrastructure project that stretches from East Asia to Europe--designed to massively expand China's coercive economic and political influence. It has spread Confucius Institutes across American college campuses, entangling American universities with Chinese state policies and turning them into megaphones to repeat Chinese propaganda. In multilateral organizations, China continuously undermines longstanding democratic norms, instituting policies that, instead, benefit the Chinese Communist Party's authoritarian values, and it has held a tight, cronyist, command-and-control grip over its economy--heavily subsidizing industries and constantly picking winners and losers.

While China has picked up some steam through some of these actions, we cannot ignore that whatever momentum it may have acquired is of dubious success and minimal sustainability in the long run. You see, China, under the control of the Communist Party, has, in reality, one of the least

efficient economies in the entire world. In terms of GDP per capita, it is quite the opposite of being at the top of the barrel. In fact, it is way down, right next to Cuba and Kazakhstan.

It turns out that political corruption and state-owned enterprises come with some financial dead weight too. The financial cost alone of enslaving, sterilizing, and brainwashing 12.8 million Uighurs and other oppressed groups is steep, even as the human cost of this moral depravity is far worse and infinitely steeper.

Killing future generations' potential through abortion is also as foolish as it is inhumane. As a result of its decades-long abortion and one-child or two-child policies, China is on track to lose a third of its workforce and age faster than any society in history. The ratio of workers to retirees in China, which is currently 8 to 1, is projected to whittle down to 2 to 1 in the coming decades. With only two employees for every retiree, China's pension system, which is already showing signs of buckling, will inevitably crack under pressure.

It is true that China is aggressive, and it is true that China is really big, but it is not ironclad in its position of global strength, to put it mildly. As its population ages more and more and as more of its land falls into wasted, polluted squalor, it will have neither the inhabitants nor the resources to continue on its current course of perceived economic prosperity.

There is nothing about China's principles or about China's trajectory that we should try to emulate, not in the least. In nearly every way imaginable, the Chinese regime consolidates power to trample the rights of individual men and women and quash free expression, the free exercise of religion, and free enterprise. Nothing could be more antithetical to the American system of government and the American way of life. In fact, it is precisely the opposite formula that has made us the world's strongest and most prosperous nation.

The Founders gave us a Constitution precisely for the purpose of dispersing and limiting power within the Federal Government and to keep government, in general, as close and accountable to the people as possible. And they gave us a Bill of Rights precisely to safeguard individual liberty and protect our most cherished freedoms--empowering ordinary men and women to preach and live out their deepest beliefs in the public square, to gather and speak freely, to bear arms, and to petition the government in redress of grievances.

You see, the beauty of this design is that it opens up the space for two separate but mutually reinforcing institutions that are at the heart of our vision of freedom and that are absolutely key to our success: a free enterprise economy and a voluntary civil society.

These systems work in tandem for everyone because they impel everyone to work together--harnessing individuals' self-interests to the common good of the community and, ultimately, that of the Nation. It is the free market system that prizes human ingenuity, rewarding people for putting their God-given talents and their own exertions and resources in the service of their neighbors.

The free market impels us to ask: What problems need to be solved? What can I do to improve other people's lives?

It is the free market that created the wealth that liberated millions of American families from subsistence farming, opening up opportunities for the pursuit of happiness never known before or since in government- directed economies. These are blessings that never will be known in an economy dominated by a government.

In America, it has also always been understood that the family is the building block of society, worthy of protecting and of empowering, and it has been the cooperation between families, churches, neighborhoods, clubs, and voluntary associations that have knit together the American social fabric and made it strong.

In other words, the beauty of the American system is that of opening up the space for everyday citizens to build creative, productive, meaningful, and happy lives together. These are the hallmarks of the American system of government, and these are the things that we ought to preserve in moving forward

Unfortunately, the bill before us attempts not to double down on our successes but to pivot to the so-called ``successes'' of China by federally hijacking research and development and crowding out the private incentives that bring successful ideas to market. It is a flawed and, ultimately, foolish strategy.

First, in our free and democratic society, we will never marshal the will to ramp up taxes and spend China into the ground, nor should we try.

Second, history has proven, time and again, that centralized planning is a losing game. The United States has already tried the industrial policy experiment of picking winners and losers and causing great harm in the process. In fact, that is exactly how we have ended up with the terrible protectionist policies like trade wars and the Jones Act.

The strategy of the Endless Frontier Act, however, is rooted in the mistaken belief that our markets have failed us and that the only means by which we can jump-start our economy and create innovation is by trusting in Federal Government bureaucrats.

So what would it do in reality?

It would green-light $54 billion in spending beyond our budget caps, with additional authorizations of $190 billion, and it would put this massive amount of money toward more government bureaucracy, producing a system where the government picks winners and losers in industry, creating artificial demand for inefficient technologies, crowding out the good research and development that the private sector already does, and increasing our manufacturing costs.

If we are to compete with China and maintain our leadership in technology, what, instead, should be our path forward? What should we do instead of passing this law that tries to compete with China by using strategies that work only for China and will never work here and must never work here?

We have to do what America does and always has done best. Instead of chilling innovation and competition, we ought to decentralize power and champion trust in the private sector. We ought to decrease regulation, not invest in regulatory bodies. We ought to simplify and cut taxes, not offshore our jobs. We ought to use our critical minerals, not let them languish. We ought to partner with our allies, not restrict fair trade. We ought to harvest timber, not organs. We ought to defend families, not diminish them. We ought to encourage entrepreneurship, not crony capitalism. We ought to strengthen markets, not government.

Two paths lie before us. I urge my colleagues to choose the better part and reject this bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 1929 and ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, the United States of America cannot meaningfully compete with Communist China. If our own government and if our own Federal regulatory system, one that 25 years ago was costing the American economy $300 billion a year and is now costing the American economy $2 trillion, if that regulatory system is hobbling us, we won't be able to compete.

That is why I introduced this amendment No. 1929, to bring the focus of the debate back to where it belongs--back to our regulatory challenges. It sets up a Regulatory Oversight and Review Task Force, composed of OMB, OIRA, and people in the private sector with expertise in this area.

The bipartisan task force would have, as its job, to conduct annually a review of all Federal regulations to figure out what is working, what is not working, what is harming American job growth, and what is helping.

Congress would then have the opportunity to review these recommendations and review recommendations in a way that would ultimately bring about regulatory reform helping us to compete with Communist China.

We can't beat China at its own game. We have to beat China by being our best selves. That is what amendment 1929 will do.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 2 minutes.

Mr. President, all human lives from conception to natural birth have innate, immeasurable dignity and worth. They are not play things. They are not mere objects for scientific experimentation.

Experiments that use aborted fetal tissue and practices that create and destroy human embryos or human lives in their earliest stages of development flatly deny that truth. Unfortunately, our own tax dollars sometimes incentivize experiments of this very kind. And the bill before us provides no exceptions, no protections to prevent it.

The Endless Frontier Act includes over $80 billion of authorized funding for key areas of biotechnology, medical technology, genomics, and synthetic biology without any ethical guardrails or protections for the earliest stages of life.

Many Americans do not want to see their taxpayer dollars used to destroy, experiment on, or unethically alter human life, and they shouldn't be forced to do so.

Now, thankfully, there are some of these protections in annual appropriations measures that go through the Department of Health and Human Services. And they have been there for decades, but because this bill expands research at the NSF, the Department of Commerce, and the Office of Science and Technology, which are funded through a different appropriations bill through CJS, the HHS riders do not apply.

That is why I am offering this amendment, which would simply prohibit any research funded through the Endless Frontier Act from using fetal tissue obtained from an abortion and creating, destroying, discarding or putting human embryos at risk.

While the NSF currently has an Agency policy that bans research in which a human embryo is created or destroyed, this would codify that. We need it to codify that. We need this to be consistent with what we do elsewhere to protect the sanctity of human life.

Look, human lives at every stage are too precious to tinker with. Our research and laws should uphold this truth. This amendment would help ensure permanent protections to do precisely that.

I call for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, it is my distinct pleasure to recognize 13 exemplary men and women who are among the best and brightest that Utah has to offer. These individuals have answered the call to service by applying and receiving appointments to the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, and the U.S. Naval Academy.

As a Member of Congress, it is my privilege under title 10 of the United States Code to nominate a number of young men and women to attend these iconic service academies. However, receiving a congressional nomination does not guarantee acceptance. To be admitted, each applicant must meet--on his or her own merits--the academies' rigorous standards.

I am happy to report that all of the appointees being recognized today surpassed the expected standards. Not only have they demonstrated their impressive mental and physical aptitude, they have also shown their high moral character, the capacity for leadership, courage, honesty, prudence, and self-discipline. These appointees maintain a steadfast commitment to service and to standing up for our country. They emulate the foundational character qualities upon which our service academies are built.

I can say, without hesitation or exaggeration that you would be hard- pressed to find a more accomplished, talented, patriotic group of American citizens anywhere. They will be a credit to our Nation as they set off for Colorado Springs, Kings Point, West Point, and Annapolis. I look forward to seeing what they accomplish in the years to come. I am honored to recognize and congratulate these fine Utahns in the U.S. Senate.

Grace Bales, from Heber City, UT has accepted an appointment to the U.S. Air Force Academy. She is a graduate of Shattuck-St. Mary's School in Minnesota where she was captain of the soccer team and earned academic all-State honors. She was a high school student ambassador and member of the student government. She helped lead the cooking club and participated in a number of activities including the knowledge bowl and debate. Grace recently attended the University of Texas Dallas, where she played soccer.

Wyatt Wayne Gleed graduated from Stansbury High School and will soon enter the U.S. Naval Academy. An Eagle Scout, he maintained a 4.0 GPA while taking challenging classes and was a member the National Honor Society. He earned academic all-State honors for cross country while his team became the two-time 4A State champions. Wyatt is a champion archer, an officer in the Technology Student Association, and a member of the Math, Engineering, Science, Achievement, MESA, Team.

Hailey Patricia Holland, from Logan, UT, has accepted an appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. A graduate of George C. Marshall High School in Virginia, Hailey was a member of the AFJROTC, Model UN, and cross country and track teams. She participated in Utah's Chinese dual immersion classes and was selected for Girls State. Grace served as president of her church youth group and participated in Color Guard honors at community events. This nationally ranked triathlete will follow her father's footsteps into the Army.

Patrick Walker Hoopes accepted an appointment to the U.S. Air Force Academy. A 2020 graduate of Skyridge High School, Patrick has spent this year at the Air Force Academy Preparatory School. In high school, he earned the title of ``Utah State'' All-Around Gymnastics Champion and qualified for nationals. He enjoys snowboarding, camping, and videography, including his work on The Ridge, his high school video production program.

Eva Fern Huber, after receiving multiple service academy appointments, has chosen to attend the U.S. Naval Academy. She stayed busy at Cyprus High School as a student body officer and captain of the tennis and basketball teams. She was a member of the National Honor Society and assisted her fellow students as a member of the Hope Squad. Eva was selected for Girls State and participated in the FBI Teen Academy and the International Children's Choir.

Zachary Ryan Kofroth accepted an appointment to the U.S. Air Force Academy. He graduated from Utah Military Academy--Hill Field, where he participated in AFJROTC as a squadron commander, as well as basketball and weightlifting. Zachary is a second team All-American and two-time Junior Olympian in fencing. He also completed over 200 hours of community service and was a member of the National Honor Society. Zachary founded the UMA Diversity Task Force and served as a member of the UMA Student Advocacy Group.

Jack Mezo Meyer, a graduate of The Waterford School, was proud to accept his appointment to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. He is following a family tradition of military service through academies. Jack was a captain of the lacrosse and basketball teams, as well as a student mentor, and cellist in the orchestra. He enjoys building and flying drones and is restating a Mustang. He also provided service at the Salt Lake City VA Fisher House and Canyon Creek Ranch & Equine Rescue.

Gavin Cox Nielsen will be attending the U.S. Air Force Academy after his graduation from West High School. He served as captain of the wrestling team and a pole vaulter for the track & field team. His JROTC team earned the title of State Champions in Orienteering. Gavin participated in many service projects through the Key Club, is a member of the Arabic Honor Society, and has earned his Eagle Scout Award. He enjoys Supermoto and Superbike racing.

David Cheyenne Orr has accepted an appointment to the U.S. Air Force Academy. He is a graduate of Bingham High School, where he participated in lacrosse and was an officer in Health Occupational Students of America, HOSA. David has been especially focused on service. As a Boy Scouts, he achieved the rank of Eagle Scout by donating 324 pairs of shoes to Haiti, as well as a school volunteer in South Korea, completing 400 hours of service helping students during the pandemic.

Henry Ellis Powell will be attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point after graduating in 2019 from the American International School of Utah and attending the U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School. Henry enlisted in the Army National Guard, served as a cannon crewmember, and volunteered for the COVID-19 Task Force. In high school, Henry earned his Eagle Scout Award, was a member of the Student Senate, the first chair trumpet in the symphony orchestra, and the two- time DECA State champion in Business Law and Ethics.

Cade Moroni Smith has accepted an appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. A graduate of Lone Peak High School, he was selected to attend Boys State and was a member of the National Honor Society. He earned his Eagle Scout Award and served as a leader his church youth group with over 600 young people. A captain of his club soccer team, he also earned Academic All-State honors for cross country.

Cameron Walker Solomon, a Park City High School graduate, accepted his appointment to the U.S. Air Force Academy. Cameron is a skilled mogul skier who qualified for nationals. He was a member of the National Honor Society and an AP Scholar with Distinction; a member of the Societe Honoraire de Francais and French Club; and a volunteer with the Park City Christian Center and the National Ability Center. Cameron also played soccer and was awarded Academic All-State.

Bradley Rex Thornton accepted an appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. A graduate of West High School, Bradley served as a student body officer and was a member of the Health Occupation Students of America, HOSA, and the German Club. He was captain of the basketball team, and an Eagle Scout who is also a leader in his church youth group. In addition to liking water sports, Bradley likes to play the piano.

Mr. President, it has been inspiring to nominate each of these exceptional young men and women. They give me great hope for the future of our armed services and confidence in the future of our Nation.

To these 13 appointees and to all their future classmates from around the country, thank you for your commitment to service. I commend your achievements. This is just the beginning of your journey. As you progress, never forget the foundation of your success thus far.

You would not have arrived at this point without the dedication and example of your parents, family, teachers, coaches, and mentors. Moreover, your own sacrifice and hard work have proven essential. You have accomplished so much.

Strive to continue on the path of strong moral character and to keep love of country as a guiding principle. Look to the past with gratitude and to the future with conviction. If you stay this course, I have no doubt that your future holds great things in store. I look forward to hearing of it. Congratulations. I wish you the very best.

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

Madam President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of Kristen Clarke to be the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.

As I have said multiple times, I am not here to call into question Ms. Clarke's motives, nor am I here to call into question whether she is a good person. In fact, I am willing to assume and even concede, for purposes of our conversation today, that she is a good person and that her motives are good. It is not my job as a Member of the Senate to go beyond that, but I do have some very serious concerns reflected in

Ms. Clark's record, concerns that, regrettably, she has failed to rebut.

First, given the importance of the Civil Rights Division to the enforcement of our Nation's anti-discrimination laws, I am concerned about past instances in which she has publicly pushed the Department of Justice to not pursue egregious instances of voter intimidation.

Ms. Clarke criticized the Department of Justice's decision to prosecute Ike Brown for voter intimidation and suppression. As a reminder, in that case, the case involving Ike Brown, a Mississippi Democratic official engaged in rampant vote manipulation and absentee ballot fraud.

Rather than praising the Justice Department's successful prosecution of the case, she criticized the decision, stating that some of the claims were ``weak.'' When asked point-blank whether she agreed with DOJ's decision to prosecute two members of the New Black Panther Party who, by the way, showed up to a polling place wielding a billy club, she demurred, saying:

I believe the leadership of the Justice Department had the

prerogative to bring the cases that it deemed appropriate to

bring.

Well, that is a completely nonresponsive answer. It is a little like saying Congress has the prerogative to pass the legislation that it deems appropriate to pass.

In short, Ms. Clarke was unwilling to decry outrageous voter suppression and intimidation when Democrats were implicated. She showed no corresponding hesitancy in challenging commonsense election security laws, like voter identification requirements, passed by Republican State legislatures.

Indeed, she has frequently challenged State election laws attempting to paint ballot security measures as categorically racially discriminatory, which raises the question: Does Ms. Clarke, in fact, oppose all voter intimidation or just voter intimidation against certain groups? When the position the nominee is applying for involves being the head of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice--the very division that is responsible for overseeing voter rights laws--that is not a question that you want to have to ask.

Second, Ms. Clarke has shown a troubling disregard toward certain constitutional rights. A few years ago, she decried the Trump administration's creation of a Religious Liberty Task Force, saying that the goal was ``to make it easier for people to use religion to mask their discriminatory goals. Shameful.''

I would remind Ms. Clarke that the very first sentence of the Bill of Rights safeguards the very religious freedoms that she accuses of ``masking discriminatory goals.''

Again, late last year, Ms. Clarke attacked the Supreme Court's decision in Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, saying the Court's ruling wrongly privileged ``religious freedom above all else.''

Now, by way of reference here, just to set the context straight, that decision in the Supreme Court's ruling in Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo simply stated that commonsense proposition--one that is, in my view, unremarkable--that the government must treat mosques and synagogues and churches the same way that it treats liquor stores and acupuncture clinics

Statements like these give religious Americans like myself pause. Why should we believe that she will defend the civil rights, including the religious rights of all Americans, not just those with whom she happens to agree?

Finally, I am worried about Ms. Clarke's failure adequately to address her troubling history of inflammatory statements and irresponsible activism.

In college, she wrote an article stating that ``Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical, and spiritual abilities--something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards.''

Not surprisingly, she was asked about this at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. And when she was asked about it at her hearing, she claimed this statement was meant to be satirical. But at no point--not during the hearing, not in connection with followup questions for the record--did Ms. Clarke ever acknowledge the obvious; that these statements were unacceptable, regardless of whether she intended them to be satirical.

Likewise, rather than express regret for her decision to participate and assist in a conference defending cop killers and domestic terrorists in law school, she merely said that she ``provided logistical support.'' That contradicts the statements made by numerous speakers at the conference who personally thanked her for her efforts.

In preparation for that same conference, Ms. Clarke recommended that an article entitled ``Mumia, `Lynch Law,' and Imperialism'' be included in the conference newspaper and discussed in connection with one of the panels.

That article contains some of the most inflammatory anti-police rhetoric I have ever seen. Here is a quote from it, an actual quote: ``The Klan is now the Police, with Blue uniforms replacing the sheets and hoods. The corrupt racist Judges, are petty Klan administrators.''

When asked about her promotion of this article in her questions for the record before the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Clarke stated that she ``ha[d] no independent recollection of that email.''

Now, once again, we have here a complete nonanswer. Ms. Clarke declined to explain, much less take responsibility for, associating herself with extraordinarily, obscenely dangerous rhetoric.

Moreover, if Ms. Clarke were to be confirmed, she would be responsible for overseeing pattern and practice investigations of law enforcement agencies, which makes her unexplained, inexcusable involvement with anti-law enforcement activities all the more troubling.

I would also point out that the article's author, Amiri Baraka, was-- like Professor Martin mentioned a moment ago--famously anti-Semitic. On one occasion, he wrote, in reference to Jews, that he had ``the extermination blues.'' So, again, we have Ms. Clarke casually associating herself with a virulently anti-Semitic thinker.

Ms. Clarke also denied on the record that she had served on the editorial staff of a college journal with Amiri Baraka. But a simple Google search of ``Kristen Clarke'' and ``Amiri Baraka'' shows that when she was an assistant editor of that journal, Amiri Baraka was a contributing editor. Her denial of this easily verifiable fact is hard to understand.

Now, let's be perfectly clear. I don't bring any of this up to suggest that all of it is unforgivable. Look, everyone has, from time to time, said or done things that they later come to regret, but let's keep in mind what we are looking at here. Ms. Clarke, herself, is asking us to apply a very different standard to her than we have applied to others--a different standard, in many ways, than she has asked be applied to others.

In 2019, her name appeared on a letter sent by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, where she sat on the board of directors of that organization, opposing the nomination of a lawyer named Ryan Bounds, who had been nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That letter stated that, ``[w]hile [Bounds] recently apologized for those comments''--comments that had come up in connection with his confirmation proceedings--``the timing of that apology suggests it is one of convenience rather than remorse, offered in a last-ditch effort to salvage his nomination.''

In her hearing testimony, Ms. Clarke provided no explanation for why we should overlook her extraordinarily controversial activities and statements while she was a student. Rather, she attempted to minimize or, in some cases, even evade her actions.

Ms. Clarke's history of irresponsible actions and words didn't end with law school. In 2019, she signed a letter defending Tamika Mallory, a woman who stated that ``white Jews'' ``uphold white supremacy'' and associated herself with Louis Farrakhan.

When pressed on this point, she gave no explanation for her statement of support, other than saying that the letter ``denounce[d] . . . antisemitism.''

Now, I am confused. How can a letter defending a woman accused of making anti-Semitic statements actually be a letter that is denouncing anti-Semitism? Either anti-Semitism is bad or it is not. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The way I read that letter, I don't see the letter as saying, yes,

that statement was bad, but there are other circumstances that should be considered. Instead, I see a wholehearted defense of the individual herself.

Likewise, just last year, Ms. Clarke wrote an article titled ``I Prosecuted Police Killings, Defund the Police--But Be Strategic.''

When pressed about this by my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Clarke, once again, sought to evade responsibility, saying that she has ``developed a practice of being deferential to editors on title selection.'' But I don't think that is how this works. The article does, in fact, have her name on it. Even if she were deferential, the fact that she is describing herself as deferential here suggests that she did, in fact, make a conscious decision to defer. She didn't say: I had absolutely no choice in it. I didn't see the title. She just said that she adopted a practice of being deferential.

In any event, you can hardly blame the editor for the title that he or she chose. Ms. Clarke wrote three times in that piece--three times-- ``We must invest less in police.''

In short, Ms. Clarke's record reflects a consistent pattern of inflammatory statements and actions, followed by a disclaimer of responsibility and a lack of candor and remorse. Moreover, her record gives us reason to doubt that she will defend the civil rights of all Americans, not just her political allies.

For these reasons, I regretfully cannot support her nomination.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, as I offer these remarks on the Senate floor today, tensions between Israel and Palestine continue to escalate to levels we haven't seen in years. Innocent lives have been lost, and hundreds face injuries.

While the global media reports largely paint Israel as the instigator of violence, this portrayal is patently false. It is simply not only not backed up by fact, it is contrary to the facts.

Hamas, a U.S.-declared, U.S.-designated terrorist organization, purposely exploited a nonviolent point of tension as justification to trigger a violent set of conflicts.

On Monday night, Hamas launched thousands of rockets into Israeli cities. The intended targets? Well, the intended targets were any Israeli person, civilian or not, residential or commercial. The goal? Just to create destruction and terror.

So to paint this action of armed aggression as anything other than offensive terrorism is disingenuous, and we in the United States and the U.S. Government itself must acknowledge and affirm Israel's right to take proportional action to defend itself against these attacks.

What is perhaps even more disturbing and distressing than the media's portrayal of these ongoing events is the Biden administration's ongoing nuclear conversations in Vienna with Hamas's No. 1 supporter--the Iranian regime.

Iran, of course, is a well-known state sponsor of terrorism. It is a major funding source for Hamas, and their leaders continue to heap praise on Hamas, specifically for its attacks against Israel.

Israel is undoubtedly our strongest democratic ally in the Middle East, and together, the United States and Israel have made great strides--tremendous strides, historical, unprecedented strides--toward peace and stability through the region through the Abraham Accords.

The Biden administration's nuclear talks with Iran, as well as its posture of willingness to concede on sanctions relief to Iran without any meaningful corresponding gains to U.S. security, undermine both the U.S.-Israel relationship and the new partnerships formed by the Abraham Accords.

We really must stand with our strongest democratic ally in the region, and we need to do that by recognizing Israel's right to self- defense against terrorism.

U.S. policy really ought to be geared toward strengthening and not undermining this valued relationship. We certainly undermine that relationship when we legitimize a regime that is funding these very same terrorist activities.

I have gotten updates. Some of them are difficult to come by, given that sometimes it is hard to find real-time, accurate facts on what is happening on the ground. In addition to relying on U.S. media, I have relied on media sources from throughout the world. I have also spoken to people familiar with the area and in some cases, people who have lived or currently live in Israel.

My friend Ruth Lieberman, a joint citizen of the United States and of Israel, recently commented, just noting the exasperation that is in the air, noting the genuine source of frustration that she feels. She said:

My kids are sitting ducks, and the world thinks we're the

aggressors.

Ruth is one of many Israeli citizens--one of countless Israeli citizens--subjected to these attacks. It is Ruth and her husband and their children who are among the many whose lives are put at risk every single day as a result of these cowardly acts of aggression.

So we can't hesitate to condemn violence when we see it; nor can we, nor should we ever step back and pretend that this is something that can be perceived as a situation where language of moral relativism or even moral neutrality can fairly be applied. On some days, that would almost be a good day, if you could truly look at both sides, if the mainstream media could look at both sides with language of moral equivalence, but they don't. They don't even do that. Instead, they largely refuse to blow the whistle on the aggressor and heap only blame and vitriol on our ally, which is not the aggressor.

There are others who, regardless of whether they use terms of moral equivalence wrongly or even unfairly, heap blame on Israel and on Israelis. Some will resort to a different tactic, expressly or in some cases implicitly saying: Yeah, I know this is bad. Yeah, I know it is bad when hundreds and then thousands of rockets rain down on Israeli citizens, innocent victims, civilians, often in residential neighborhoods. Yeah, I know that is bad, but then again, Israel has a strong military, in part because the U.S. supports its strong military and shares funding and equipment with the Israeli military.

Let's think a little bit about the flawed logic there, how truly messed up that is. You know it is cold comfort to the men and women and children whose lives are put in danger every single day when they have rockets raining down on them; it is cold comfort to them when their loved ones die or are afraid to go outside even when they haven't done anything wrong; it is cold comfort to them to say: Well, at least Israel has a strong military.

Look, Iron Dome and David's Sling--these great technologies that have been developed with the support of the United States--they provide a great source of security and comfort and safety to the Israeli people, and these same technologies benefit the American people as well. But let's remember, those technologies are not foolproof. They can't catch every single rocket. The more rockets that fire, the more difficult it is to protect citizenry from casualties. So let's never make that mistake of saying it is not that big of a deal because Israel is well fortified and has a strong military infrastructure and Israel has sophisticated, top-of-the-line, state-of-the-art equipment

It doesn't excuse--nor can it in any way, shape, or form negate--the terrors to which they are subjected. Look, whenever someone aggresses and starts firing on someone else, they are opening up a whole can of worms. We can't be good allies and we can't be good global citizens unless we are willing to call out acts of unprovoked aggression, acts of violence, acts even of terrorism.

Unless we are willing to step out and call those evil and unprovoked and unwarranted--unless we are willing to do that--we won't have the credibility that we need, not just with our allies but also with our enemies. We have to make sure that Hamas doesn't enjoy our support--not directly, not indirectly, not through our acquiescence or otherwise.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the people in Israel. Everyone gets hurt--the Israelis and the Palestinians--when Hamas engages in violence and then tries to pass that violence off as somehow a defense on their part. Nor can we allow Israel to be castigated as the aggressor, as the instigator of these acts of violence, when it is plainly and clearly not true.

I hope our friends in the media and in the Biden administration will acknowledge that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I offer my recognition of Mr. Ken Potts for his heroic service to our country and congratulate him on his 100th birthday.

Ken was born on April 15, 1921, in Honey Bend, IL. His childhood was spent on the family farm during the difficult years of the Great Depression. Despite the difficulty of the times, the Potts family worked earnestly and happily to make ends meet. In fact, Ken has fond memories of time in his boyhood spent hunting small game with his slingshot.

At the onset of WWII, when Ken was just 18 years of age, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy. Two short years later, he was stationed in the South Pacific working as a crane operator on the largest ship in the Navy's fleet, the USS Arizona. The work ethic he learned as a child, on the family farm, earned him great success during his military service.

On December 7, 1941, the Pennsylvania-class battleship was docked at Pearl Harbor along with the rest of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Ken was working that morning shuttling supplies to the Arizona when Japanese torpedo bombers descended from the sky. One of the 797-kilogram armor- piercing bombs dropped by the bombers exploded through the decks of near a supply staging area at the front the ship. Thinking quickly, Ken risked his life in a small boat to pick up dozens of sailors stranded in the burning water, dropping them off at nearby Ford Island. His heroism saved many. Of the survivors of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Ken is one of two still alive today.

Ken was undeterred by the harrowing experiences of the attack on Pearl Harbor. He remained in the Navy and served his country honorably until 1945. After the war, Ken returned to the States and moved to Provo, UT, here he has lived with his wife for 54 years.

Ken Potts embodies the very best attributes of the ``greatest generation''. He is a living testament to American bravery, honor, and dignity in defense of the American way. I wish him a very happy 100th birthday. It is my humble privilege to honor him today.

Mr. President, water is one of our most precious resources, and it is vital to life. It is necessary for agriculture, industry, recreation, conservation, the development and growth of cities, and so many aspects of our day-to-day lives. Unfortunately, for States like Utah--States with a lot of Federal land and States that are dry in many areas--our supply for this critical resource, water, is threatened under the Antiquities Act.

Why is this the case? Well, let's review the background.

Back in 1908, the Supreme Court concluded that, when the Federal Government reserves land for an Indian reservation, it also implicitly reserves sufficient water on that land to fulfill the purposes of the reservation, creating the ``Federal reserved water rights'' doctrine. In later cases, the Court expanded that doctrine to apply to other Federal properties--other Federal properties like national forests and recreation areas.

Then, in 1976, the Supreme Court held that the doctrine applied to national monuments created by the President. In other words, it affirmed the President's authority unilaterally to change the legal water rights within a State simply by designating a monument under the Antiquities Act

Now, under the Antiquities Act, the President has the authority and the discretion to create a monument, as long as there is Federal land. So it makes a State like mine, 67 percent of which is owned by the Federal Government, a sitting duck for abuse.

Now, we have talked about Antiquities Act abuses in other contexts. Here, I am focusing in on a very narrow ramification of Antiquities Act abuse, which relates to water rights. It is only that narrow ramification that I am trying to address with this amendment.

Monument designations can be and often are made without the approval of the State and its inhabitants. And, unfortunately, in recent years, these designations have grown rather significantly in size and in scope.

The result for public land States, like Utah, is involved in access and use to the water supply being significantly curtailed. In some cases, privately held water rights are even terminated altogether, and it opens up the door to even greater abuse under the Antiquities Act down the road.

Imagine for a moment if a proposal for a national monument were designated in just one river basin, such as the Grand Canyon. In order to preserve the flow of water on the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, water rights--legally established, longstanding, long- established water rights--could be eliminated, completely eliminated in Colorado, in Utah, in Arizona, in Nevada, in California through the stroke of the executive pen.

A reservation of water could reduce or eliminate drinking water for communities across the West. It could eliminate irrigation water for almonds or grapes in California or Sudan grass in Utah. The perils are endless.

That is why I am introducing an amendment that would prevent the President from unilaterally creating reserved water rights when designating a national monument.

Now, it is important for me to mention--now that I have explained what this amendment would do, I want to talk about what it would not do.

My amendment would not prevent the President from creating a national monument itself. And, furthermore, it would still allow for water rights to be acquired for a monument through the State system in which the water rights themselves reside.

It would simply and fairly give States a say in the process, regardless of how you feel about national monuments or about the Antiquities Act. I have made clear in the past I have got grave concerns with the Antiquities Act, and I believe it needs to be repealed. This bill does not do that. This bill simply cabins off water rights and says that water rights need to be handled through the legal process to which they would otherwise be handled, to which they would otherwise be subjected.

This is a simple, commonsense solution to ensure that Utah and other States where there is a lot of Federal public land are guaranteed the protection of their existing water rights and a reliable water supply. It would be easy to dismiss or denigrate or downplay the importance of this if you live in a State where there is not much Federal land. But if you live in a State like mine, where most of the land is owned by the Federal Government, you can understand how quickly this could become destructive, if abused, and that is exactly why we need this amendment.

I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, it would be a gross understatement to say that Alaska tourism and, indeed, tourism around the country is suffering and has been throughout the pandemic.

The cruise industry, which accounts for more than 50 percent of all tourists visiting Alaska every year, has been particularly decimated not only due to the pandemic but also because of an arcane law passed by Congress back in 1886.

This law, known as the Passenger Vessel Services Act, or PVSA, states that no ship that is foreign built, foreign owned, foreign flagged, or foreign crewed may transport passengers between two U.S. ports or places. So instead of operating continuously in U.S. waters, ships and cruise operators departing from the United States are forced to make stops in foreign ports in order to remain in compliance with this 130- year-old law.

In other words, we are literally shipping our tourism and our economic activity abroad to other countries and, in the process, we are destroying countless opportunities for our own coastal cities, States, and towns.

Now, you don't have to take my word for it. You can google this and see it for yourself. Cruises from the United States, if they leave from the United States, must make stops in Canada, Mexico, or Pacific Island States in order to avoid incurring the wrath and the heavy penalties of the Passenger Vessel Services Act. Instead of welcoming tourists and the dollars they spend into American ports, we drive them to Canada, to Mexico, and to Pacific Island States.

Does this law even succeed on its own protectionist terms? Does this law protect American shipbuilders? It decidedly does not. It decidedly does neither, in fact. Just to be clear, this is a point of differentiation here. I have made no secret about the fact that I don't like the Jones Act. The Jones Act is a separate beast from this. They are both beasts. I dislike both of them intensely. I would repeal both of them today if I had the chance. I understand, at least, with respect to the Jones Act, what the arguments are as to why we would want to keep them intact. I strongly disagree with them, and I believe U.S. consumers pay for them dearly, especially in places like Puerto Rico and in places like Hawaii, in parts of New England, and in other places where they have more limited access to the goods that they might otherwise have access to in the absence of the Jones Act.

There is a big difference between the PVSA and the Jones Act. At least with respect to the Jones Act, there are other considerations, and those considerations do not exist with respect to the PVSA.

Now, it is important to keep in mind, again, the difference between the Jones Act and the PVSA, which is that with the PVSA, we are dealing specifically with passenger vehicles, passenger vessels. I am directing my remarks today to those passenger vessels in the large passenger vessel category; that is, those with at least 800 passenger berths or more.

With respect to those, this is very significant because the United States has not built a single large cruise ship in over 60 years--not one, not a single one. With respect to large passenger vessels, this law is literally protecting no one.

At least with respect to the Jones Act, people can point out: Well, perhaps it is helping to nurture the U.S. shipbuilding industry. Again, I think that argument overlooks the fact that we are laying that burden on the backs of poor middle-class Americans in places like Puerto Rico and Hawaii and New England and Alaska and other

parts of the country. But at least I understand that, when there is an industry at issue there. It is an industry that is being greedy, and it is an industry that, really, is engaging in crony capitalism. But I understand the argument.

With respect to the PVSA, we are not protecting anything because we do not make large passenger vessels in this country and haven't for over half a century. And so by taking away opportunities for American jobs in dockside maintenance and repair, in ports and coastal cities, in hotels and restaurants, and in the travel support sector, this law, the PVSA, as applied to large passenger vessels, harms American workers, and it redirects the demand elsewhere.

It also harms consumers who have fewer options--fewer cruises that they can take, higher prices for those cruises that are offered. And as we have seen during the pandemic, it has left us subject to the will and whim of foreign powers.

Make no mistake, the PVSA is not ``America first.'' This is the encapsulation of ``special interests first'' or even, you might say, ``Canada first.'' Perhaps this is the reason that the Canadian Government lobbies Congress to keep the PVSA in place. Think about that for a minute.

This unfortunate situation has been exacerbated by the pandemic, during which Canada has closed its ports to cruise ships, making it, effectively, impossible for Alaskan cruises to carry on. But the only reason why Canada wields this tremendous authority over us is because of our own law--our own law that they are lobbying us to keep in place because they benefit from it, but they are shutting it down, making it impossible for Alaskan cruises for the time being.

Without the necessary foreign port call, cruises simply cannot travel to Alaska. Without relief, the Alaskan tourism industry will evaporate, harming Alaskan dock workers, repairmen, those in the hospitality services, and more.

Just the same, think about all the jobs that aren't created that could otherwise exist, that could exist tomorrow if we just got rid of this 130-year-old law that serves no purpose--the jobs, the vacation opportunities, especially in port States, not just Alaska but Florida, Louisiana, Texas, New York, and many, many others, places where cruise ships already depart but are severely hobbled as to their itineraries because of this law, the PVSA, that serves no one--no one, perhaps, except these foreign powers.

The CDC's outdated no-sail order has made these matters so much worse, and we have to address those as well.

Alaska already lost last summer's season. That is tragic. I can't imagine Congress would force them to lose yet another season now. Yet that might already be the case, you see, because unless they start moving those ships up there right now, there can't be any cruise ship season for Alaska this summer.

Now, my two colleagues from Alaska, thankfully, introduced a bill to help correct the issue by exempting certain Alaskan cruise lines from the PVSA for the duration of Canada's border closure, a bill that I was happy to support in order to provide short-term relief for Alaska, even if it didn't provide the reform needed for the long term, as we desperately need.

Unfortunately, the bill that is now before us has deviated from that purpose. It now has poison pill provisions that add duplicative, unnecessary, and unrelated regulations that will harm, not help, the cruise industry.

Look, I remain ready, willing, and eager to negotiate the terms of this, but we have to provide relief. It is not just about an industry. It is not just about any one State. It is about the access the American people have through their businesses or their own travel interests. We should be able to do this. It makes no sense to anyone. No one could plan a road trip and say that we can't go to a neighboring State unless we can touch back to a foreign country in the meantime. Nobody would fly to an adjacent State or across the country if, in the process, they had to fly to a third-party country merely in order to comply with some arcane Federal law--no one, except, of course, the very wealthy, who could still afford it. Most Americans can't.

And the Americans who can least afford this law--this law that serves no one, perhaps, except the foreign interests I mentioned, including, but not limited to Canada--the people who really suffer for that, are America's workers. Shame on us if we don't fix that.

Look, I remain hopeful, optimistic, and ever-willing to negotiate this. I have lots of amendments to offer up. In deference to my colleagues from Alaska, I am going to hold off on counterproposing those right now. But I am filing them, and they are ready to go. I hope we can negotiate our way through this. If we can't, shame on us. The PVSA is bad. It is bad news. We need to let it go.

For these reasons, I object.

Mr. President, over the past 13 months, Americans have endured extraordinary constraints on one of the most precious rights guaranteed by our Constitution: the right to freely exercise their religion. There is, perhaps, no freedom more intertwined with our nation's history. It was religious freedom that drove persecuted settlers from England to America just over 400 years ago. And they were not the last. Over the centuries, countless religious minorities from across the world have come to America, seeking refuge from religious warfare and bigotry.

To be clear, we haven't always lived up to this ideal. Members of the church to which I belong were forced to flee across the country due to religious persecution, to name just one example. Despite these aberrations, however, no nation in the history of the world has protected and preserved the rights of religion and conscience like the United States.And that's not an accident. The First Congress recognized the profound importance of religious freedom by protecting it in the very first sentence of the Bill of Rights. That provision--called the First Amendment--states that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' The Supreme Court has applied this prohibition to State and local governments through the 14th Amendment.

So what does this mean, practically? First, governments cannot discriminate against religion or single it out for worse treatment than similar nonreligious activities. But, second, if a government does treat religion differently than other similar activities, it must 'pass'' the ``strict scrutiny'' test. That means that the government must show that there was absolutely no other way to achieve an extremely important goal than restricting the religious activity in question.

The First Amendment is clear. Religious exercise must be protected. Nevertheless, over the course of the pandemic, governments throughout the country have placed heavy-handed restrictions on this fundamental freedom, restricting Americans' freedom to gather for worship, to meet in smaller groups for religious purposes, or even to sing.

At first, Americans accepted these restrictions. We understood the extraordinary difficulties facing our leaders as they struggled to grapple with a new and deadly virus. And we were assured that these restrictions would be temporary, lasting no longer than necessary. But as the weeks and months dragged on and the prohibitions on religious exercise continued, we began to see a startling trend. As restrictions on restaurants, casinos, and museums began to thaw, in many states, synagogues, churches, temples, mosques, and other religious gatherings were left out in the cold.

In May 2020, the Governor of California allowed some restaurants and retail businesses to operate indoors with up to 50 Percent capacity. Meanwhile, all indoor religious services--of

any size, and even with identical precautions--were outright banned.

California was not alone. In Nevada, the Governor allowed gambling establishments to reopen in June, 2020. As thousands flooded into casinos along the Las Vegas strip, religious gatherings in Nevada remained strictly limited to 50 people. Likewise, in New York, houses of worship were explicitly singled out for worse treatment. In some areas, religious gatherings were restricted to only 10 people, while train stations, acupuncture facilities, and factories in that same area could allow entry to as many as they wished.

And I could go on. Again, and again, COVID lookdown rules left religious Americans on the outside looking in.

Despite several opportunities to overturn these clear, discriminatory restrictions, for most of 2020, the Supreme Court failed to intervene. In South Bay v. Newsom, five Justices--without explanation-declined to halt California's ban on all religious services. Likewise, in Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak, the Supreme Court left Nevada's discriminatory ban on houses of worship in place. And again, they did so without explanation.

The pandemic stretched on. Some States eased restrictions, allowing worshippers to gather. Others did not. During that time, countless weddings, baptisms, holy days, and, perhaps most heartbreakingly-- funerals--were observed in isolation from family, friends, and community. Or not at all.

Finally, in November of last year--after over 8 months of lockdowns-- a ray of light broke through. In Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, the Court held that ``even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. [New York's] restrictions . . . strike at the very heart of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty.'' Subsequent decisions earlier this year resurrected the First Amendment's robust protections of religious liberty. Just a few weeks ago, in Tandon v. Newsom, the Supreme Court resoundingly affirmed religious freedom, summarily rejecting California's discriminatory restrictions. Thanks to God, the First Amendment lives.

It's been a long road to get here. But we can't ignore the lessons of the past 13 months. That's why I offered an amendment to S.937, the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, which would require the Attorney General to create a report detailing the restrictions imposed on religious exercise imposed during the pandemic.

This amendment directs the Department of Justice to look into: first, whether governments applied the same rules to religious groups that they applied to similar nonreligious organizations and businesses, and, second, whether those restrictions complied with the First Amendment. The goal here is simple-we need to understand and remember how Americans in 2020 lost their religious freedoms in order to ensure that it never happens again.

Mr. President, I stand today in opposition to this illegitimate motion to discharge the nomination of Vanita Gupta to become the Associate Attorney General of the United States.

I say that this motion to discharge is illegitimate because it was-- because the Senate Judiciary Committee and its chairman decided unilaterally to ram through a vote on Ms. Gupta in violation of the rules and precedents of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

As has been the longstanding tradition in the Judiciary Committee, members were debating the nomination of Vanita Gupta and expected that everyone would be given the opportunity to speak.

But in the middle of a speech being delivered by one of the Judiciary Committee's members, Senator Cotton from Arkansas, the chairman of the committee, Senator Durbin, cut him off and unilaterally proceeded to a vote, effectively nuking the committee rules that should have allowed Senator Cotton and others to speak.

Never, in the more than 10 years that I have served on the Judiciary Committee, have I seen a chairman of that committee so blatantly, brazenly violate rule and principle and precedent in this way. This behavior is not only unusual, but it is inexcusable.

Lengthy debate in committee markups is actually much more common than some in this Chamber might have you believe. For example, Democrats filibustered the nomination of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions for so long that then-Chairman Chuck Grassley was forced to delay a consideration of his nomination until the next markup.

You have got that right. Chairman Grassley actually followed the committee rules and allowed for all of our colleagues to speak, notwithstanding the fact that they disagreed with him, notwithstanding the fact that it was contentious, notwithstanding the fact that he didn't like what they were saying.

And by doing so, he was forced--because he was complying with the rules and the precedents of the Senate--to delay the consideration of Attorney General Sessions' nomination. But that is what he did. He did that instead because it was preferable to an act of unilaterally forcing a vote and thereby nuking the Judiciary Committee's rules.

Now, to put this in context, we need to understand that Judiciary Committee rule IV states:

The Chair shall enter a non-debatable motion to bring a

matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection

to bringing a matter to a vote without further debate, a roll

call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall

be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote

without further debate passes with twelve votes in the

affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.

Rule IV essentially preserves the right of minority members to speak.

Chairman Durbin decided to nuke that part of rule IV in particular because he knew that he didn't have 12 votes to prematurely end debate.

Now, when you are in the majority, it can be tempting to run right past certain rules, knocking things over in the process in order to get your party's nominees confirmed. But I think it is important for us to resist that temptation in order to protect the rules of our institution from partisan passions.

Following these rules, respecting minority prerogatives, is precisely what allows us to maintain bipartisan cooperation in the Senate and lower the partisan tensions in our country. This is all the more important when we consider that there is no true majority in the Senate, and there is no majority at all on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Unfortunately, with this breach, it looks like some of my colleagues might prefer convenience over debate. I find that most unfortunate, especially because I have worked with so many of them on a bipartisan basis on so many issues.

Now, some of my colleagues may claim that Republicans have done this very thing many times. That, however, is not the case. On multiple occasions, we allowed for extended debate and even delayed reporting of matters before the committee, like Attorney General Sessions' nomination and the Crossfire Hurricane subpoenas, until the next markup. When we set votes with the consent of the majority, the chairman followed committee precedent and did so through a rollcall vote--again, consistent with committee precedent.