Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, this week, the National Guard is departing what has been a months-long presence here at the Capitol. Aspects of the Guards' presence here were not fleshed out as clearly or coherently as either Congress or the servicemembers deserved, and Members of Congress will continue to discuss and debate whether it is appropriate for uniformed military personnel to play an ongoing role in policing the U.S. Capitol going forward.

But where Senators are absolutely, 100 percent united is in our great admiration and appreciation of the individual men and women who volunteered to serve in the National Guard, who have put on the uniform, and whose orders brought them here to the Capitol Complex.

It was my particular honor to get to meet and talk with several groups of the remarkable men and women of the Kentucky National Guard during this period.

Thank you, all, from all 50 States, for your patriotism and for your service.

On a completely different matter, when President Biden's nominees have been qualified and mainstream, they received bipartisan cooperation. But the President's choice to head a key Division at the Department of Justice as an Assistant Attorney General failed to even advance out of the committee.

The Democratic leader had to reach into the Judiciary Committee and rescue the nomination of Kristen Clarke. Our colleagues on the committee did not give her a favorable recommendation. That is because of a long history of statements that placed the nominee on, frankly, the far-left fringe of the political spectrum.

If our Democratic colleagues have their way, a couple of days from now, the American people will have an Assistant Attorney General who argued publicly just last year that ``we must invest less in police.'' She used that exact phrase three times in one essay.

Violent crimes shot up dramatically in 2020. One survey of 30-plus major American cities found that the murder rate jumped 30 percent last year alone. Other estimates have found even larger increases. Experts say 2020 saw the largest 1-year rise in homicides that America has ever seen as far back as we have recorded these kinds of statistics.

Early data from this year suggests that 2021 may even be worse, but, apparently, the President's response to this violent crimewave is to have a proponent of defunding the police help run the Department of Justice.

Adequate policing is not an enemy of civil rights. Among other things, a recent study by multiple university professors confirmed that more cops lead to fewer murders:

Larger police forces save lives, and the lives saved are

disproportionately Black lives.

Police funding isn't the only important issue where the nominee's judgment has missed the mark.

Three years ago, when the then-Attorney General was standing up a task force on religious liberty, Ms. Clarke said this was designed ``to make it easier for people to use religion to mask their discriminatory goals''--an incredibly out-of-touch, far-left statement.

Finally, we are currently watching an alarming spike in anti-Semitic attacks and violence across our country. I introduced new legislation on Friday, with Senator Cotton, to confront anti-Semitism head-on, but as a Harvard undergraduate, Ms. Clarke invited, welcomed, introduced, and then defended a famously anti-Semitic guest speaker who had authored a book literally entitled--now listen to this--``The Jewish Onslaught.''

The nominee has stated recently that she regrets that decision. Goodness, I would certainly hope so.

Yet she also claims that her op-ed from just last year, which asserted three times--three times--that we must invest less in police, was not actually suggesting that we invest less in police.

This is not the right nominee for a crucial post at a crucial time so I would urge colleagues to vote no this week.

Now, Madam President, on another matter, last week, a bipartisan majority of Senators voted to proceed to floor debate about our Nation's long-term competition with China.

There is no disagreement that the People's Republic's strategic capabilities and its growing influence beyond the Indo-Pacific pose a singular challenge to American strength and security. There is robust debate about the right ways to address this challenge.

The legislation before us arrived on the floor incomplete, and it spans a number of huge issues that occupy multiple committees' jurisdictions. It is a prime example of a bill that needs a thorough, bipartisan amendment process here in the Senate. So far, we have had a few votes on important amendments. There are a lot more that need consideration, and we should not close debate on this bill until those amendments are addressed.

Unfortunately, during one important vote last week, our Democratic colleagues sent a telling signal. They voted down Ranking Member Inhofe and Vice Chairman Shelby's amendment to make sure that the real backbone of our competition with China--the resources we allocate to our Armed Forces and national defense--was not neglected.

Make no mistake, supply chains, espionage, intellectual property-- those are all important topics, but all the policy tweaks in the world would not amount to much help if we lose our military edge with respect to China. Soft power isn't much good without the hard power to back it up.

The Chinese Communist Party appears to understand this quite clearly. According to one watchdog, it has increased military investment by 76 percent over the last decade. China has increased its military spending by 76 percent over the last decade. The same data show that our own U.S. defense spending fell 10 percent over that period, thanks to the approach of the last Democratic administration, and now President Biden has signaled that he wants to cut defense spending after inflation-- exactly the wrong approach.

No serious strategy for our competition with massive foreign powers could leave the U.S. Armed Forces, their tools, and their resources out of the conversation in a meaningful way. I hope and expect we will have a number of further votes on important amendments before there would be any attempt to shut off debate on this wide-ranging measure.

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

Madam President, we know that competition with China will shape America's security and prosperity for decades to come. That is a fact. The legislation on the floor purports to deal with this issue. It covers a huge range of topics, from economics to education, to foreign and defense policy. Earlier this week, I voted with the majority of Senators to proceed to this important debate, but as Members have noted, this bill did not come out of committee quite ready for prime time. It needs thorough floor consideration, with a robust, bipartisan amendment process.

Today, we will vote on a very important amendment that I will be proud to support. Ranking Member Inhofe and Vice Chairman Shelby have legislation that will return the pivotal issue of the funding of our national defense to the center of the conversation about competing with China, and this is right where it belongs.

All the soft power in the world will only benefit us as long as we have the hard power to back it up. We must maintain our military edge against China and Russia. Yet, for all of this talk about competing with China, the Biden administration's budget proposal seeks to cut defense spending after inflation.

China's long-term military investments are paying dividends that really should alarm us, but Democrats want to pump the brakes on our own? Fewer resources for our own men and women in uniform? Less defense innovation? What sense does that make?

If there is truly broad bipartisan support for taking our competition with China more seriously, there ought to be big bipartisan support for the Inhofe-Shelby amendment later today.

(Mr. HICKENLOOPER assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, on another matter, our Nation's southern border is still in crisis. The Biden administration still won't admit it. Much of the media would prefer not to cover it, but the facts are clear, and they are unacceptable.

A few days ago, Customs and Border Protection issued its report on the month of April. The number of encounters with illegal entrants was 3 percent

higher in April than it was in March. The crisis is still growing. Encounters with single adults on the border were 613 percent higher last month versus April of last year, when the Trump administration put emergency measures in place. Encounters with unaccompanied children were up 2,217 percent year over year. Let me say that one more time: 2,217 percent more kids, without parents, at our border on President Biden's watch.

The administration has tried to boast that the number of unaccompanied kids in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security has gone down. It has. It is because they have transferred large numbers of kids from DHS to HHS. There are now more than 19,000 children in the custody of Health and Human Services, and hundreds more are arriving every single day.

We know why all of this is happening. When Washington Democrats spent years reciting the mantra ``Abolish ICE; abolish ICE,'' people listened. When our new President spent his campaign signaling he would support a weaker border when he expressed that he supported providing government healthcare to people here illegally, people actually took note. Now the Democrats cannot get control of the crisis that they have stoked.

The Vice President--supposedly, the point person to fix illegal immigration--has yet to even visit the southern border.

Apparently, Secretary Becerra's operation at HHS has, in some instances, left migrant children stranded on buses for multiple days-- exactly the kind of unacceptable mismanagement that Senate Republicans feared we might see under an HHS Secretary without relevant healthcare or management experience. Last week, HHS announced it would be taking money that was meant to replenish the Strategic National Stockpile-- money to fight this pandemic and future pandemics--to help with the migrant crisis.

Well, today, the Senate will consider another amendment from the senior Senator from Wisconsin. It would stop the Biden administration from canceling contracts that are already in place to build a wall on our southern border. Perhaps our Democratic colleagues will help us begin to address the border crisis this administration has caused.

Now, Mr. President, on a completely different matter, as Democrats have pushed their massive political takeover bill, S. 1, Americans' First Amendment rights and privacy rights have been thrust into center stage. The legislation contains multiple elements that would chill Americans' exercise of free speech and let Washington bureaucrats hoard more of citizens' private information without cause. We know exactly how this could go wrong.

Remember President Obama's IRS scandal? Unelected bureaucrats treated organizations differently and subjected Americans to unequal scrutiny depending on their beliefs. Nonprofits with a whiff--just a whiff--of conservative beliefs were slow-walked and singled out for unfair treatment. Or think back to 2014. The Obama administration had to reach a settlement after a government worker leaked confidential information about a conservative group, which was in violation of Federal law. Unsurprisingly, those private details found their way to a liberal group that had plenty of ideas about what to do with them.

Courts have found that the State of California has repeatedly leaked or inappropriately released confidential information about nonprofits' donors. Last year, in remembering all of these incidents, the Treasury Department finalized action on a basic, commonsense principle: If there is no legitimate reason for the IRS to have certain information, then the IRS shouldn't collect it.

It makes sense.

The prior administration had the IRS stop the blanket collection of nonpublic information about citizens who make non---I repeat, non--- tax-deductible contributions to certain organizations. Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are not tax deductible. The IRS doesn't need these details just for kicks and giggles, but now the Democrats' politica takeover bills would roll back this step and open new fronts in the far-left war on privacy and free speech.

S. 1 would narrow the protections of the First Amendment. It would empower the Feds with new authority to track and police the speech of Americans. This is the same bill that would essentially make Washington Democrats the board of elections for every county and State in America. I guess, somehow, maybe, that wasn't enough.

Well, I have worked with my colleague from Indiana, Senator Braun, on legislation to nip one part of this nonsense right in the bud. Our bill would codify the rule issued by the last administration. Americans would remain free from a Federal dragnet collecting private information that it neither needs nor uses for legitimate law enforcement purposes--information that can be mishandled or, worse, used to target and harass Americans based on their views.

So I am proud to stand with Senator Braun, with 39 Republican cosponsors, and with citizens across America, across the political spectrum, who don't need the IRS peering into their First Amendment activities any more than is strictly necessary. I would certainly urge all of our colleagues to support our simple bill.

Mr. President, on one final matter, my Senate office is losing a talented and dedicated young staffer this week. Fortunately, he has just been on loan from his home State--our home State--all along, and he is now heading back to the Bluegrass.

Kevin Grout started with me 5 years ago. This bright, sharp, and cheerful, young McConnell Scholar from the University of Louisville began as a staff assistant in the mailroom or, you might say, as sort of my ``body man.'' But in this line of work, talent attracts responsibility. Before long, Kevin had graduated to serve as the speechwriter in my personal office. In 4\1/2\ years, he has helped me craft more remarks, op-eds, and written statements than any of us could possibly count--almost all focused on issues that matter most to Kentuckians.

We are sorry to lose Kevin's talents here on the team, but Kevin and his wife Addie are taking their careers and their young son Henry and putting down roots where it all began. Washington will be sorry to see them go, but it will be Kentucky's good fortune to welcome him back.

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

Mr. President, 2 years ago, I spoke to a gathering of friends of Israel. At the time, I was working to advance pro-Israel legislation to combat the BDS movement.

This was a far-left effort to create worldwide anti-Israel boycotts. I was struck, at the time, by the opposition to the bill from the far left, and I said the Democrats had to stand up to the growing chorus of anti-Israel voices in their own ranks or we would all come to regret it.

Well, fast-forward to today. Our friends in Israel are now in their second week of a difficult counterterrorism campaign. They are responding to unprovoked rocket attacks raining down on their people. Predictably, the radical fringe has leapt to excuse the acts of terror and, of course, blame Israel, as usual. But, now, disproportionate pressure is not only being placed on Israel by far-left activists. Now, sitting Members of Congress are actually joining in. One Democratic House Member has lately called Israel an ``apartheid state.'' Another said it is guilty of ``terrorist acts.''

For a long time, Republicans and Democrats have stood together in standing with Israel. I am proud of all of the work we have accomplished together, like improving Israel's Iron Dome defenses, providing precision-guided munitions and Joint Strike Fighters, and collaborating on counter-tunneling technology to thwart terrorists. These bipartisan efforts have paid dividends for Israel and for the United States.

As recently as 2014, during the last major conflict between Israel and Hamas, most Democrats stood unhesitatingly with Republicans to unequivocally condemn Hamas and support Israel. But, now, rather than having Israel's back, senior Democrats have actually pressured Israel to end its defensive operations. They have called for a ceasefire and urged leaders to strive for peace through a negotiated two-state solution--as if Israeli Prime Ministers from across the political spectrum haven't made good faith efforts in the past toward peace.

Of course, in this case, Israel is not fighting the Palestinian Authority. They are not up against the Palestinian Authority. They are not at war with the Palestinian people. They are fighting Hamas. Everybody around here surely knows by now that Hamas is a terrorist group that opposes a two-state solution. They want Israel destroyed. That is who this fight is between--Israel and Hamas--not the Palestinian Authority, not the Palestinian people. It is between Israel and Hamas, Israel versus terrorists.

So let's dispense with this ``both sides'' nonsense. Only one side has taken credible steps toward peace, and even when rocketed by terrorists, Israel takes extraordinary pains to avoid harming civilians. This includes giving advance warning to Palestinian civilians in the places they are about to strike. It calls them up in advance and says: Get out of there. We are about to strike.

Frankly, Israel is taking more care to protect Palestinian civilians than is Hamas, which intentionally hides behind innocent people in violation of the laws of war and then exploits their deaths to advance the cause. Hamas doesn't represent Palestinians any more than it represents the rest of the region's Arabs, which is to say, not at all.

For decades, administrations mistakenly assumed the road to Middle East peace led through agreement between Israel and the Palestinians and that nothing else could be addressed until this was resolved. In reality, the previous administration facilitated the Abraham Accords--a historic step that helped Israel normalize relationships with majority- Muslim countries like the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Sudan. Morocco normalized its relationship as well. This progress toward peace, based on shared geopolitical and economic interests, came in spite of intransigence from leaders in Gaza.

Now the Biden administration wants to deny this historic progress. A few days ago, the President's spokeswoman argued incredibly that with respect to the prior administration, ``We don't think they did anything constructive''--really?--regarding ``the longstanding conflict in the Middle East.'' Really? The recognition between Israel and four Arab countries is not progress? Give me a break.

Now, as Israel battles terrorists, the Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee indicated this week that he might try to obstruct the supply of precision technologies that helps Israel avoid civilian casualties. How does that make sense? And remember that Chairman Meeks only chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee because the far-left primaried the previous chairman--a staunch Democratic supporter of Israel--right out of his seat in Congress. You can see where the far left is trending. This effort to block arms sales is basically the same play that some Democrats ran with Saudi Arabia and the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen. Let's just think about that. Fortunately, the latest reports suggest the chairman may be backing down from this. I certainly hope so.

Yet the White House still can't give a straight answer on whether and when we will help Israel replenish the Iron Dome system that protects its citizens. Leading Democrats are even talking about easing sanctions on the Iranian regime, which helps fund terrorist proxies like Hamas and keeps their rocket arsenals full. They come from Iran--and the administration still proposes to cut our own U.S. defense funding after inflation.

So, listen. Israel's enemies are watching--make no mistake--not just Hamas but Hezbollah and Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. We cannot send the signal that terrorist attacks on American allies will be met with mealy-mouthed attempts to blame both sides

Abortion

Now, Mr. President, on a completely different matter, when President Biden nominated Xavier Becerra to run the Department of Health and Human Services, it was clear what the Nation was getting--a hardened culture warrior with no health or medical expertise. Where Secretary Becerra did have experience was in trying to impose a far-left social agenda.

He fought and fought in Federal court to make religious nonprofits pay for things that violated their consciences until he finally got creamed in the Supreme Court by a ruling that was 7 to 2. Before that, he had fought and fought to force crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortion, trying to coerce a certain kind of leftwing speech out of private groups. The Supreme Court slapped him down then as well. That was the resume Secretary Becerra brought to his current position.

Last week, in a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the Secretary either forgot about Federal law on abortion or revealed that he just didn't care what was on the books. When a Member of Congress used the common term ``partial-birth abortion,'' the Secretary coyly suggested he didn't know what that meant. He tried to get the Congressman to use the more clinical verbiage that helps the far-left conceal this grotesque subject. Then, when pressed, Secretary Becerra claimed ``there is no law that deals specifically with the term `partial-birth abortion.' ''

Well, the Secretary may wish that were the case, but it isn't. That is completely false.

U.S. Code, title 18, section 1531 is the Federal ban on partial-birth abortions. It uses the exact term seven times. It defines the banned practice in all of its barbaric detail. Back in 2003, I was proud to join with almost two-thirds of the Senate when we passed this mainstream law. Our Federal ban on this awful procedure remains widely popular with the American people. It is the bare, bare minimum. Yet President Biden's HHS Secretary is either ignorant of the Federal law or wants to pretend that it actually doesn't exist.

Remember, the far left has kept America one of just seven countries-- seven--in the world that allows elective abortions on demand after 20 weeks. Countries across Europe, like France, Spain, Germany, Norway, and Denmark, all limit elective abortion to before 20 weeks. The far left wants America to be an outlier on the global fringe, and President Biden's HHS Secretary either doesn't know or won't admit that the phrase ``partial-birth abortion'' even appears in Federal law. A misstatement like that is embarrassing enough, but the radicalism that lies behind it is even worse.

Protests

Mr. President, on one final matter, after careful consideration, I have

made the decision to oppose the House Democrats' slanted and unbalanced proposal for another commission to study the events of January 6.

As everybody surely knows, I repeatedly made my views about the events of January 6 very clear. I spoke clearly and left no doubt about my conclusions. Federal law enforcement has made at least 445 arrests and counting relating to crimes committed that day. Hundreds of those people have been charged. Law enforcement investigations are ongoing, and Federal authorities say they expect to arrest at least 100 or so more. Bipartisan investigations are also underway and have been for months at the committee level here in the Senate.

There is, has been, and there will continue to be no shortage of robust investigations by two separate branches of the Federal Government. So it is not at all clear what new facts or additional investigation yet another Commission could actually lay on top of existing efforts by law enforcement and Congress.

The facts have come out, and they will continue to come out. What is clear is that the House Democrats have handled this proposal in partisan bad faith, going right back to the beginning, from initially offering a laughably partisan starting point to continuing to insist on various other features under the hood that are designed to centralize control over the Commission's process and its conclusions in Democratic hands.

I have been an outspoken critic about all of the episodes of political violence that our Nation has seen over the past year. I support the strong existing investigations and justice for any American--any American--who has broken the law.

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

Mr. President, recent headlines have reinforced a warning that Republicans and economic experts have been articulating literally for months: The massive spending the Democrats insisted upon at the outset of the Biden administration was not in step with actual needs.

Yesterday, I talked about some of the ways the multitrillion-dollar spending spree rammed through in March has actually delayed our reopening and our recovery: about the disappointing fall-off in hiring, despite a historic number of open jobs, after the Democrats renewed a Federal program that pays people extra not to work. Well, here is another misplaced priority from that spending spree: our Democratic friends' insistence on stuffing another wheelbarrow of cash into the accounts of State and local governments that were already rebounding from the crisis.

Back in February, as the Democrats insisted States were in dire need of another huge bailout, 29 of the 50 States were actually closing a 12-month chapter in which their revenues met or exceeded the year before. Twenty-nine of the fifty States were actually closing a 12- month chapter in which their revenues met or exceeded the year before the pandemic.

The faster-than-expected economic recovery, combined with the five bipartisan bills Congress passed in 2020, left a lot of cities and States in even better shape in exiting the pandemic than they were heading into it. Rising tax revenues had put these States in a position not only to weather pandemic-related downturns but to fill in preexisting budgetary potholes that actually had nothing to do with COVID hardships.

Of course, that didn't stop the Democrats from cramming nearly another $200 billion in State bailouts into the American Rescue Plan. Impressively, California got its hands on $26 billion of the $200 billion. By the way, the State of California now claims it already has a budget surplus three times that size--three times that size of a budget surplus--and we are sending them another $26 billion.

They are having to brainstorm new ideas to spend the unneeded avalanche of cash. I understand the State's Governor has come up with one idea he likes. He is planning to cut a timely round of State-level stimulus checks to include people who are in the country illegally-- just in time for his recall election later this year. Is that the kind of urgent priority the Democrats had in mind when they used COVID to push through what they called the ``most progressive'' legislation in history?

Experts warned it was poorly targeted, and Republicans said American families deserved better, but the big catalog of political payouts was pushed right through. Let's remember exactly how this played out before we are doomed to repeat it again.

Now, Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, yesterday, the Senate took a step toward considering wide-ranging legislation that would touch on multiple parts of the U.S. economy in the name of increasing innovation and competitiveness.

A secure, productive, and innovative America that can outcompete China is something that all 100 Senators want. Of course, in a place like the Senate, you are guaranteed to find a wide variety of different ideas about the best ways to encourage that. A number of our colleagues have assembled a proposal that touches on a long list of subjects-- everything from funding universities, to regional economic development, to Indo-Pacific geopolitics, to artificial intelligence, to cyber security, and beyond. Legislation this broad needs a thorough, robust, and bipartisan floor process, including a healthy series of amendment votes.

As one of my Republican colleagues--the ranking member on the Commerce Committee--explained, as he supported moving the legislation out of committee, the current draft is ``not ready for prime time'' yet and deserves a robust process here on the floor.

I understand this bill has come to the floor with a bipartisan understanding and the Democratic leader's assurances that there won't be an effort to close debate on amendments prematurely. So I look forward to the Senate's considering these important issues, and I hope all of this interest in our competition with China will lead our Democratic friends to rethink President Biden's intention to cut our defense spending after inflation. The single best thing we can do to stay competitive with China is to give our Armed Forces the resources they need to stay competitive with China.

Mr. President, on one final matter, sometime soon, we also expect to vote on a Democratic resolution to overturn a rule put in place by the previous administration. Under Republican leadership, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission--an aggressive Washington regulator of the American job market--issued modified marching orders that increased transparency and decreased the odds of expensive lawsuits.

Several years back, one investigation found the EEOC had become very aggressive and was perpetrating a kind of legal harassment on job creators, often leaving American taxpayers on the hook for court cases which the Commission had actually lost. Taxpayers were paying to sue job creators and lose in court, so the Republicans updated their guidance. It was the first substantial update of the way the EEOC handles disputes and conciliation since 1977. It said that the employer in question deserves a written summary of the facts behind a complaint, a written explanation of the legal justification, a few other details, and 14 days to respond. Sounds pretty reasonable. This helps ensure the Commission is making a good-faith effort to see if the dispute can be settled outside of court before beginning a costly, adversarial process.

Apparently, even these modest steps were too much for my friends on the Democratic side. They want to roll back this progress. A number of groups have asked them not to do this, from small business owners, to builders and contractors, to restaurant owners, to retailers, and beyond. These are the same employers who are already struggling to climb back out of this pandemic and rehire workers. They don't need any more Washington headwinds in their faces, and taxpayers don't need more of their dollars being funneled back toward trial lawyers. So I would urge Senators to vote against this resolution so the current, improved rule can actually be left in place.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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