Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, in a bipartisan vote, the Senate advanced important legislation to increase our Nation's competitiveness with China. The United States Innovation and Competition Act, USICA, of 2021 is significant legislation and an example of what process and debate can yield in the U.S. Senate.

This legislative package is the end result of the bipartisan work of from

multiple Senate committees and reflects the urgency of addressing the challenges faced by domestic manufacturers and American researchers in our global competition with China. This includes an emergency appropriation of $54 billion in funding for grants to make semiconductor chips here in America and for the continuation of chip production in Essex, VT. The package also allocates $1.5 billion in funding for implementation and domestic research and development, R&D of 5G technology to ensure that the United States drives the modernization of its own communications infrastructure.

The bill significantly raises authorization levels by almost $120 billion over 5 years for the National Science Foundation, NSF, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Energy, DOE. These historic investments in American ingenuity will help strengthen our country's R&D capabilities, regional economic development opportunities, manufacturing capacity, and supply chain resiliency.

Through the creation of a new Directorate of Technology and Innovation at the NSF, the Federal Government will be able to better support research and technology development in key focus areas, such as the growing artificial intelligence space and quantum science. Among other activities, the Directorate will help fund R&D at collaborative institutes, establish technology testbeds, and award scholarships and fellowships to build a workforce equipped to lead us through the 21st century and beyond.

Throughout the process, I was encouraged to see a strong focus on the need to continue to increase education, research, and workforce opportunities in rural and underserved areas throughout the country. The regional technology hub program at the Commerce Department established in this bill will benefit rural communities in Vermont and across the country. These hubs, of which there will be three per EDA region, will carry out workforce development activities and business and entrepreneur development activities, among other important activities. I appreciate the work done by fellow Members in the Senate to ensure that these hubs truly and accurately represent the significant economic needs of rural areas in this country.

The inclusion of increased supplementary funding for research at universities that participate in the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR, takes important steps to build our Nation's capacity in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM, field. This funding will also help reduce the geographic concentration of research and development and education opportunities across the country. For far too long, Americans have had to leave their hometowns and even their home States to get an education and find work. This bill will give rural residents more reasons to stay close to home and help their communities grow from the ground up. I have seen the incredible work that has already been done by the University of Vermont's participation in EPSCoR and am excited to see what is to come from this substantial investment.

This serious legislative package shows what can be done when we all work together in the Senate. Thanks to these efforts, we will be able to secure America's role as a global leader in technology, R&D, and manufacturing. I hope the House of Representatives will soon consider this legislation so President Biden can sign this historic initiative into law.

Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to vote on the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, I wanted to take moment to highlight the support this bill provides to the U.S. semiconductor industry. I want to commend the leadership that Senators Warner, Cornyn, and Schumer have shown in highlighting the need for our country to ensure that we maintain leading edge manufacture capabilities in the United States. I strongly support the over $50 billion provided in this bill for the Department of Commerce to join in partnerships with U.S. semiconductor companies.

My history with microelectronics spans my career in the Senate, and I can remember when Tom Watson selected Essex Junction as the location for an IBM fab to produce some of the first generations of mass produced integrated circuit memory and processing chips. Of course, it revolutionized computing. Over the years, Vermonters working out of Essex led the way in inventing new kinds of chips and new ways to make chips, at the same time making Vermont the State with the most patents per capita.

Over that time, I heard again and again from national security leaders from both political parties that one of the biggest threats facing the United States was that our revolutionary technology was threatened by the production of chips increasingly moving to foreign countries. While some of those countries closely cooperate with the United States, being offshore provides an inherent risk of the chips being compromised by malicious actors or even facilities themselves being rendered inoperable, one way or another.

I helped create a program called Trusted Foundry within the Department of Defense to provide critical chips for national security needs that we knew were untampered with from start to finish and were made right in the United States. Because the national security needs alone could never be produced at an economically practical scale, we located Trusted Foundry in commercial fabs, including the one in Essex. Today that factory still produces both commercial and national security chips, particularly chips used for radio frequency or RF functions.

With this bill, we continue the endeavor to produce chips in the United States at a commercially viable level. We hope that the production can supply our national security needs, by geographically keeping production domestic, thereby increasing our confidence that the chips have not been tampered with.

Through the Appropriations Committee, I will continue oversight of this important area. We will ensure that these grants are administered well and build toward a better future. And we will ensure they are part of a whole-of-government effort, including contributions from the Department of Defense and other Agencies from their own authorizations and budgets. Thanks to this bill, I look forward to a brighter, and more technologically capable future.

AMENDMENT no. 1813

Mr. President, the Budget Control Act of 2011 expires this year, and that is a good thing.

This law led to a decade of underfunding our domestic priorities, from which it will take years to recover. Right now, in communities across the country, our infrastructure is crumbling, millions of Americans cannot access Federal programs for which they qualify, and we are falling behind in investing in science, research, and development on the global economic stage--all of this because the Budget Control Act set artificial and unrealistically low caps on discretionary spending, and it inflicted arbitrary, across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration.

President Biden understands the real consequences of this decade-old decision. That is why tomorrow, President Biden will propose a 16- percent increase for nondefense investments in his budget. We cannot build back better until we recover the ground we have already lost.

I want to give a few examples of what I mean. For many low-income families with young children, the beginning of summer means the end of school breakfast and lunch programs and waking up every morning dreading how you will be able to put food on the table for your children. Basic nutrition is a basic requirement for child health, development, and education.

The Summer EBT program is meant to help these families bridge to this gap, with an extra $30 or $60 per child every month. This is a program that has proven itself successful, reducing the number of households with food-insecure children from 43 percent to just under 35 percent. But because of the Budget Control Act, this program has been flat- funded. We could not expand upon its success. And today, only 16 percent of children who need access to USDA food programs have that access.

This problem of underinvestment in successful, worthwhile programs is true across our appropriations bills.

Our country, which has led in some of the greatest scientific discoveries of the last century, ranks 24th out of 36 developed nations for investments in university research and development as a share of

Mr. President, there is no State in America more beautiful than Vermont, but along with its jaw-dropping beauty, Vermont is home to some of the finest, most active and engaged citizens who make it such a special place.

Theresa Alberghini DiPalma is one of those people. Theresa recently let it be known that she will be leaving her senior position at the University of Vermont Health Network.

I have known Theresa and her late parents for more than 30 years. Theresa's parents were both public school teachers. They raised five children in Burlington, including Theresa. Her father Roy saw Active Duty as a lead navigator on bombers in the European theater in World War II. Her mother Connie was also a pillar of the community. She taught Spanish, and she was an accomplished musician and extraordinary cook.

Theresa grew up in Burlington, the youngest of those five kids and the only girl. After college, she started in my Washington office answering phones. She steadily climbed the professional ladder to be both my top healthcare adviser and then my legislative director.

For as long as I have been in the Senate, I have talked about the challenge of keeping, maintaining, and attracting young Vermonters to our State. More than 20 years ago, Theresa did just that. In the mid- nineties, Theresa returned to Vermont to be closer to family and to serve as Vermont's chief healthcare regulator.

After leaving government service, Theresa joined the University of Vermont College of Medicine in 2000, serving as assistant dean for external relations. In 2002, she was called to serve--first on a temporary basis and then permanently--at then-Fletcher Allen Health Care during a time of great challenge.

Theresa joined a dedicated team, led by Ed Colodny, which worked tirelessly to restore public trust in our State's academic medical center.

Theresa is a now a senior vice president for external relations at the University of Vermont Health Network, where she and her colleagues support and lead an integrated healthcare delivery system in Vermont and New York, dedicated to ensuring that the more than 1 million people in the region have access to the care they need, close to home.

Theresa's commitment to the well-being of our communities is boundless. She has served on several boards, including Mercy Connections, the United Way of Northwest Vermont, the Lake Champlain Chamber, the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, VELCO, VGS, Vermont Business Roundtable, the

Governor's Council of Economic Advisors, and Governor Scott's Government Modernization and Efficiency Team, among others.

She is deeply committed to the professional advancement of women in our area and routinely mentors young professionals.

She and her husband Robert reside in Burlington. Marcelle and I think of their home on Maple Street as our second home. While I know one incredible chapter is closing for Theresa, I also know that she hasn't lost her passion for making Vermont a better place. I so look forward to seeing what is ahead.

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

Mr. President, I am opposing this amendment before us. I just thought I would mention some of the pragmatic reasons for that. A mandate to offer dollar-for-dollar parity between defense and nondefense programs unless there are 60 votes to overcome the point of order is not limited to discretionary spending, which would be in the fiscal year 2022 appropriations bills, but in all Federal spending.

Let me tell you what that means. It may make people feel good, but let me tell you what it does. If you provide a dollar to the Defense Department for every dollar of nondefense spending, well, it is simply arbitrary.

These are some of the absurd results. Under this amendment, if we pass an infrastructure bill through reconciliation--and we know that in the States represented by all 100 of us, we have roads, bridges, water systems, everything else breaking down and deteriorating and has to be fixed. If we don't do it now, it is going to cost us a heck of a lot more in the future.

So let's say we have $2 trillion to rebuild our bridges, our roads, our water systems, broadband, and so on, but then we would have to automatically provide $2 trillion more for defense, nearly tripling the defense budget and spending more on defense than the rest of the world put together. And the Department of Defense says very frankly that there is no way they could spend that kind of money--unless we have 60 votes, a supermajority. Now, come on.

I will give another example. This can get really weird. Suppose a hurricane hits somewhere in the South. We have seen that happen-- hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding--or you have massive fires that rage out in the West.

So as we have always come together in the past, Republicans and Democrats alike, to help those communities that have been destroyed--we are the United States of America--then let's say we provide $10 billion, which we have in the past, to help communities recover and rebuild. Well, then, even though they don't want it, we have to provide $10 billion to the Department of Defense.

And why are we spending that? Because they had a flood in Louisiana or a tornado in the Midwest or an earthquake in the West or a forest fire. Well, we have got to rebuild them, but we have got to spend an equal amount at the Department of Defense, whether they want it or not.

In another way, let's say we increase funding for veterans, which we should. Well, then, we would have to say: Well, wait a minute. The Department of Defense will have to have a dollar-for-dollar increase. I can go on and on with a whole lot of other examples.

We are going to have to obviously address the costs and the efforts that we went through here because of the riots on January 6. Do we do an equal amount for the Department of Defense if we repair the damage done to the Capitol?

Now, why don't I suggest that we do what we were taught to do, and I have seen the Senate do over the past 40-some-odd years, we actually have debate about appropriations? Have a debate about the defense level. Either vote up or down. Have a debate about nondefense spending in fiscal year 2022 and vote it up or down. Let's not start off with some arbitrary rules, which make no sense--an arbitrary rule that says we are probably going to have to hesitate to help out the communities that have been struck by a tornado because we have to spend twice as much money as it would cost to repair those communities because we have to put an equal amount into the defense budget, whether they want it or not.

Now, I can say this, as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I understand some annual increases in the Defense bill, but that should be considered as the Defense bill, just as we should consider our healthcare bills, just as we should consider infrastructure bills, education, and all those. We can easily do each part of these appropriations bills that make some sense to the American people.

In the past, many times we have been able to get bipartisan agreement. Let's do that. Let's stop playing like children or some arbitrary ``You give me this; I will give you that'' kind of rule. We are U.S. Senators. We should be above that. We should be the conscience of the Nation. There are only 100 of us. The country looks at us. We ought to respond to the country.

January 6 Commission

I note that no one is seeking recognition at the moment. I just had another thing. The House of Representatives did the right thing. They passed a bipartisan vote to have an independent Commission to find out what happened on January 6--what sparked it; who was involved; how many crimes were committed; why did police officers who protect the Capitol lose their lives; why did others lose their lives; why did we have such a huge amount of damage; why did we end up spending hundreds of millions of dollars; why were the lives of Republican and Democratic

Members of Congress put at risk? Why not have, as we did after 9/11 and other major things in our country, a bipartisan committee to look at it?

That is what the House voted on last night. I am disturbed when I hear Republican leaders, both in the House and the Senate, say: We don't want to have any kind of a hearing. We don't want to know what happened. We don't want anybody to ask a question.

Well, I don't know about your State, but I can imagine you probably heard a lot of questions from the people in your State. I heard a lot of questions from Republicans and Democrats alike in my State who basically said: What in heaven's name has happened? We are the greatest country on Earth, and we are seeing our symbol of democracy with a mob of people going in. People are dying. Property is being smashed. People are posing for selfies: Hey, I am breaking the law; don't I look great? There was a gallows with a noose and with the name of the Vice President of the United States on it put outside here.

Come on. We ought to find out what happened. We were shamed throughout the world by what happened. Let's not have that happen again. Let's have a real committee. Find out what happened and who was responsible and see what steps we take not to have that happen again.

I am proud of the U.S. Capitol. I have had the opportunity to serve here for decades. I remember coming through this body as a teenager with my parents and being awed by it. I looked at the Brumidi paintings with my Italian-American mother and the pride she felt looking at that. I looked at other things with my Irish-American father and the pride he had in the history. All of us did. I have taken Vermonters from both parties through here, enjoyed pointing it out, and everybody feeling the sense of history.

So what do we see now? A locked-down Capitol because of the insurrection. And we don't want to actually ask questions? What is this? What is this? Why don't we all just cower under our desks?

Well, we can't ask a question. I am going to hide down here. I see nothing. Oh, come on now. The American people saw plenty. Let's have that committee. Let's have that Commission. Let's find out what happened and make sure, for God's sake, it never happens again.

I yield the floor

Mr. President, the late Walter Mondale is widely known for having transformed the role of Vice President, ably taking on many key responsibilities that were delegated to him by President Jimmy Carter. Less noted are his many accomplishments in this body while he served as a Senator from the State of Minnesota.

Walter Mondale is sometimes described as the paradigm figure of the transition between two eras--the FDR Coalition up to the war in Vietnam and the social ferment that came after the war. And perhaps this is so, but to me, who Fritz Mondale was and what he stood for are just as important as when he stood there. The issues he led on then are as fresh as today's news and as enduring as our founding documents, issues like the concentration and abuse of power or social and economic justice and the consolidation of wealth in the pockets and portfolios of just a few or the role of government in protecting the little guy when powerful market forces run roughshod or the tension between freedom and security; even the question of whether a woman ever could credibly assume the highest office in the land. Trace any of these issues back in time, and you will find Fritz Mondale at earlier decision points.

Fritz Mondale was a good man whose decency elevated every institution in which he served. Who he was has everything to do with what he achieved. He loved the Senate, and the Senate loved him back. He said the Senate ``was like mainlining human nature.''

One side of Fritz that the public did not see as readily as we did in the Senate was his sense of humor--one of the

best I have ever known. In many a tense moment, his sense of humor often defused the tension and restored the spirit of comity that is so crucial in getting things done in the Senate. He knew the art of being able to disagree without being disagreeable. I wish the American people had seen more of that side of Fritz Mondale.

That was a heady and vibrant legislative era, and Fritz had a hand in virtually every major piece of civil rights, education, and childcare legislation that emerged from Congress during that period.

Another of Fritz Mondale's most remarkable and lasting achievements in the Senate was to engineer a change in the Senate's rules, to curb the abuse of filibusters in thwarting the will of clear majorities of the American people. The difficulty in passing the civil rights laws of the sixties had gradually convinced more and more Senators that the bar for cutting off debate in the Senate was set too high.

That might not sound difficult, but changing the way the Senate operates is something akin to trying to change the weather.

As a freshman Senator, I had a front seat and a bit part in Fritz's highly organized campaign to change the cloture rule. He won the change in the cloture rule, and it is not an exaggeration to point out that his efforts probably saved the Senate as we know it, and he did it without changing the Senate's fundamental character.

The Senate at its best can be the conscience of the Nation. It takes constant work and vigilance to keep our system working as it should for the betterment of our society and its people. Keeping faith with these fundamentals accounts for much of the legacy of Fritz Mondale.

It is easy for politicians to appeal to our worst instincts and to our selfishness. Political leaders serve best when they appeal to the best in us, to lift our sights, summon our will and raise us to a higher level.

Fritz Mondale's farewell message to his staff made clear that this is how he thought of himself to the end of his days: as a public servant. He represented the best of what public service means.

Through his own public service Fritz Mondale invested himself in the belief that our democracy gives each of us the opportunity to thrive, to make justice real, and to make the economy work for all and not just for some.

His legacy in the Senate deserves to be and will be an enduring one.

Mr. President, I want to call attention to recent events in El Salvador which have caused international concern, including in the U.S. Congress.

I was a Senator in the 1980s, when social injustices and authoritarian regimes in El Salvador led to a brutal civil war that lasted 12 years. I traveled there during that period when the United States was supporting the Salvador Armed Forces, despite their history of corruption and collusion with death squads that carried out political assassinations with impunity.

Finally, in 1992, after tens of thousands of lives lost and atrocities including the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero and six Jesuit priests and their housekeeper and her daughter by the Salvadoran Army, the two sides signed the Peace Accords that ended the war. Those Accords failed to solve the country's historical problems, and the leaders of the Arena and FMLN parties failed to put implementation of the Accords above their own corrupt, political ambitions, for which they ultimately lost the support of the Salvadoran people. But the Accords did establish the foundation for democracy, including a clear separation of powers with checks and balances as well as a limited constitutional role for the armed forces and the newly formed civilian police to avoid ever again being used for political purposes or repression.

I mention this history and the price in human suffering that was paid for the chance to build a peaceful, democratic society in El Salvador, at a time when key elements of the Peace Accords are under assault from within the government itself and President Nayib Bukele.

In February 2020, in a show of force designed to intimidate the Salvadoran Congress, which at that time his party did not control, President Bukele, accompanied by heavily armed soldiers, occupied the legislative chamber to demand passage of a law to pay for new equipment. Fifteen months later, after winning a supermajority in the Congress, he turned his attention to the judicial branch.

Under the Peace Accords, the Office of the Attorney General, formerly an appendage of the Executive that was used for repression and persecution of political opponents, became an independent institution, acting as a fourth branch of government and appointed by a majority of Congress to a 3-year term. Since the Congress is also elected for 3- year terms, every Congress gets to appoint an Attorney General. The President has no say in the matter.

The Attorney General can be removed by a majority of Congress for just cause and in accordance with due process. Attorney General Raul Melara's term was to end on January 6, 2022, just 7 months from now, and the newly elected Congress could have selected someone to replace him after

that date. However, on May 1, President Bukele's supermajority in Congress summarily removed Mr. Melara without cause and appointed a political loyalist as Melara's replacement, contrary to the requirements of the Constitution and raising serious doubts about the continued independence of the office.

It is notable that prior to his dismissal, the ousted Attorney General, with U.S. support, was investigating a number of cases of corruption against top government officials, including a multibillion- dollar money laundering case. Then last week, in what can only be interpreted as a flagrant attempt to shield themselves from accountability, the Congress passed a law to provide retroactive immunity to all government officials implicated in corruption involving spending linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. Also last week, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the anti-corruption unit suddenly resigned, for reasons that have not been explained, and was also replaced by a Bukele loyalist.

Those actions were just the beginning. El Salvador's Supreme Court has 15 justices elected for 9-year terms and distributed among different chambers. Every 3 years, Congress can appoint 5 justices from a list of 30 candidates submitted by the National Council of the Judiciary. The President has no say in the matter.

Justices can be assigned to and transferred from any chamber, except justices in the Constitutional Chamber who are appointed by the Congress strictly for that chamber and cannot be transferred. The chief justice of the Supreme Court is also selected by Congress from among the five members of the Constitutional Chamber.

The newly elected Congress would have elected five justices from different chambers of the Supreme Court in June from the already submitted list of candidates. However, on May 1, the Congress removed all five justices from the Constitutional Chamber and their substitutes, without cause or due process, arguing that their rulings were biased and contrary to the government's policies. Out of those justices only one would have completed his term in June. The other four from the Constitutional Chamber were serving terms until 2029. Apparently, the role of the judiciary as a separate branch of government that serves as an independent check on Executive power in a democracy is unacceptable to President Bukele and his congressional allies.

The Congress appointed new justices but not from a list of candidates submitted by the National Council of the Judiciary. So not only was the sudden removal of justices unconstitutional; so was the appointment of new justices.

The Constitutional Chamber had played an essential, historical role as a check on the Executive's abuse of authority, which is plainly why its justices were targeted for removal. The chamber often rebuked the Executive for overreaching in its actions, including the Bukele-ordered military occupation of the Congress in February 2020. Thus, by removing the Attorney General and the Supreme Court justices, the Congress gave President Bukele control of all branches of government, creating a situation in which corruption can flourish with impunity.

I have recounted these events because they have created a crisis that could have profound consequences for El Salvador, and for U.S.- Salvadoran relations. My concern is not only what it means for democracy in that country but what it could also mean for its economy and the livelihoods of its people. The stifling of democracy ultimately deprives already desperate people--suffering from the COVID pandemic, two hurricanes in 2020, and gang violence--of any hope their lives will get better, and this desperation is a major driver of migration to the U.S. border.

The United States has always been El Salvador's largest trading partner and its largest donor. CAFTA--the Central America Free Trade Agreement--established not only trade preferences but labor, health, and environmental standards. The results have been significant.

Forty-five percent of El Salvador's exports go to the United States under CAFTA, which amounts to $2.6 billion a year.

Thirty-five percent of its imports come from the United States, totaling $3.5 billion a year.

There are nearly 3 million Salvadorans living in the United States, of whom 200,000 have temporary protected status. Collectively, they send $6 billion each year in remittances to their relatives in El Salvador, which amounts to 25 percent of the country's GDP.

On top of that, the United States has provided El Salvador with more than $700 million in aid through USAID, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and other agencies in the last 5 years alone. Much of the progress made with those funds is now at risk of being washed away.

The largest exporters in El Salvador are U.S. corporations, which are also the largest employers in El Salvador.

President Bukele knows that his dictatorial actions are a direct challenge to the United States and to the Biden administration's emphasis on democracy, human rights, and combating corruption in the region. Faced with criticism from the White House and the U.S. Congress, he may point to China as an alternative to the United States, as if a knight in shining armor from Beijing can gallop in and solve El Salvador's problems.

But the people of El Salvador have no connection with China, and they are not about to cast aside their longstanding relationship with the United States. Trade with China has always been one-way and characterized by dumping practices that have destroyed local industries in El Salvador. There are no major exports from El Salvador to China except occasional shipments of coffee and sugar. Chinese infrastructure projects do nothing to help unemployed Salvadorians, when China sends the steel, concrete, and even the Chinese workers to build them.

The Salvadoran private sector knows that China isn't the answer. They know the country cannot prosper without democratic institutions and the rule of law.

El Salvador is a sovereign country, and President Bukele was democratically elected. He makes his own decisions. But the choices he and his allies in the Salvadoran Congress make, that are eviscerating El Salvador's democratic civilian institutions and empowering the armed forces, have consequences for U.S.-Salvadoran relations. They have consequences for our aid programs and for our support for financing for El Salvador from the IMF, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the World Bank and for our trade relations, and for visas.

This isn't about national sovereignty and foreign interference, as President Bukele has falsely suggested. His actions directly affect the United States, U.S. companies, our commercial relations, and the welfare of millions of Salvadorans in the United States, as well as the Salvadoran population.

I join others here and in El Salvador in urging President Bukele and the Salvadoran Congress to reconsider their unconstitutional actions and to restore the separation of powers and the rule of law. Don't destroy the Peace Accords' greatest achievement. End the attacks on the rule of law, respect the tenure of other justices and the Human Rights Procurator, and appoint justices to the Constitutional Chamber and an Attorney General following the established procedures and ensuring that they are people with the necessary professional qualifications, integrity, and independence.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, as we finally, finally begin to turn the corner on the coronavirus pandemic, we have the hard work of rebuilding our economy.

One of the core engines of the American economy is intellectual property. From the smallest startup to the largest multinational company, intellectual property is central to creating jobs, boosting economic output, and protecting consumers. So it is appropriate that, today, we celebrate World Intellectual Property Day, which recognizes the important role that intellectual property plays in promoting innovation, creativity, and economic growth.

This year's World IP Day theme celebrates the contributions of small- and medium-sized businesses to the global marketplace. Why? Well, these small enterprises make up 90 percent of the world's businesses. Whether through protecting their brands with trademarks or their inventions with patents, intellectual property allows these small companies to grow and succeed; yet, here at home, far too many Americans with an entrepreneurial spirit find key elements of the intellectual property system out of their reach.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property--and I am privileged to chair that--held an important hearing to find ways to boost access in the patent system. We know that women and people of color are chronically underrepresented in the patent system, which results in a serious loss to our economy.

I am particularly proud that this hearing featured testimony from Georgia Grace Edwards, a Middlebury College graduate and entrepreneur, who realized that, after spending a summer in Alaska and 8 to 12 hours at a time on ice, she was at a serious disadvantage when it came to answering nature's call during her treks. Like so many innovators before her, Georgia Grace got to work in designing a new zipper--in sense, it was such a great thing--that could be incorporated into a variety of women's pants.

Now, while she was ultimately able to successfully navigate the patent system and secure protection for her idea, here is the problem. She faced a number of barriers along the way: the high cost of obtaining a patent, particularly from legal fees; a lack of knowledge about how the patent system works; and the lack of representation of women throughout the system.

Ten years ago, Congress enacted the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which put structures in place to help access the patent system and bring up a far more diverse set of inventors into the innovation economy, and at our hearing, we heard specific ideas for building on the success of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.

As the President awaits nominating the next Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, I want him to choose a nominee who shares a commitment to increasing access. It is not just the huge companies that need it; it is the small inventors.

It is important that the next Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office respect the law, including the statutory bounds set by Congress. You know, the last administration took steps to undermine the Leahy-Smith Act. They acted outside those statutory bounds.

I have always sought to curb the potential for poor-quality patents to be abused. That drove much of the work we did 10 years ago. So I look forward to supporting a nominee for PTO Director who shares my view that it is important to weed out poor-quality patents, avoid the potential for abuse, but at the same time reinforce the protection provided to high-quality patents.

We must also work to ensure that hard-working small business owners and creators who rely on copyright protections to make a living are able to protect their works online.

While I appreciate the steps that some online platforms are taking to address the persistent problem of online infringement, much like the issue of diversity in the patent system, more work needs to be done.

Last month, I joined with Senator Tillis and other members of the IP Subcommittee, and we sent a letter to major online platforms outlining specific voluntary measures they could adapt to crack down on online infringement. I hope that on World IP Day, the leaders of these online platforms will take a moment to consider the plight

of the individual songwriter or photographer or the independent film producer and give serious thought to steps they can take to ensure that creators can adequately protect their works online. You know, for these small and independent creators, nothing short of their livelihoods is at stake.

Finally, I want to recognize the important work our IP system does to protect consumers. The trademark system helps to guide consumers in finding which products are legitimate but also which are not.

Unfortunately, fraudsters are relentless in exploiting opportunities to fool consumers into buying counterfeit products, and that has been especially dangerous during the global pandemic. Just last month, authorities seized more than 65,000 counterfeit 3M N95 masks--not like the real one I am holding. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. As the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am committed to ensuring that Customs and Border Patrol has the resources it needs to respond to the ever-evolving counterfeiting threat. A diverse, accessible, and effective intellectual property system that rewards creativity and innovation is essential to our Nation's continued prosperity, and I look forward to working with Ranking Member Tillis and the other members of the IP Subcommittee, as well as with the Appropriations Committee, to both celebrate the achievements of American inventors and ensure that their contributions are being protected

Madam President, I rise today to address the need for Congress to restore one of its constitutional powers, the power of the purse.

My family arrived in Vermont in the 19th century to work in the granite quarries in Barre. Later, my parents ran a printing business right across from the Vermont State House in Montpelier where I grew up.

I stayed in Vermont for college, only traveling 45 minutes up the road to Saint Michael's College where I received an excellent education. After earning my law degree at Georgetown, I returned home to Vermont to serve as the State's attorney for Chittenden County.

As Vermont's senior Senator, serving the last 46 years, I speak with community leaders, dairy farmers, small business owners, and Vermonters across the State every day. My staff in Vermont and DC dedicate themselves to doing the same. Before the pandemic, Marcelle and I would stop to chat with people in the grocery store, at the gas station, or in our favorite bakery in my hometown of Middlesex. We miss being able to do this during these times of social distancing, and are looking forward to the day when we can return to those in-person chats and visits.

Needless to say, I am a lifelong Vermonter, and I know my State very well. I have a deep understanding of Vermont's communities, Vermonters, and their needs.

But for the past decade, I have had to fight for them here in Washington with my hands tied behind my back. Every Member of this Chamber has their hands tied, because we ceded the power of the purse to unelected bureaucrats here in Washington when we instituted a ban on congressionally directed spending. As a result, instead of being able to direct even a fraction of the tax dollars we collect from our hard working constituents back into their communities, we turned these decisions over to the executive branch.

These unelected officials are dedicated public servants to be sure, but they cannot possibly understand the needs of our communities to the extent that Senators do. To them, a new community center is nothing more than a line item on a spreadsheet. To us, we know the potential such a community center can unlock because we have spoken to the organizers who want to build it. We have heard their plans for new programs to provide children with afterschool opportunities, offer job training programs to the recently unemployed, or provide a social space for the community to gather.

A grant for the historic preservation of a rural downtown is just one of thousands of applications that may be considered by employees at the National Park Service. But I know what that money can do in the hands of dedicated community advocates, someone like my late, dear friend Paul Bruhn at the Preservation Trust of Vermont. Paul saw the potential of historic preservation of rural downtown spaces to support small businesses and preserve the fabric of Vermont, but there is no reason the National Park Service employees would know what a visionary he was or how much just a little bit of Federal support could be stretched to help revitalize a community.

Senators of this Chamber were forced to push for these worthwhile efforts by advocating to unelected officials to support projects in towns these officials have never visited run by passionate community leaders they have never met.

The practice previously referred to as ``earmarking'' was not without abuse, and some particularly high profile examples of that abuse. But today, 65 percent of Congress was elected after the ban in 2011 and only know the practice for its ugly headlines, not the great benefit it can bring to our communities and our society.

We can still see the benefit from projects previously funded through congressionally directed spending in communities around the country and in successful national programs today. The research that led to the Human Genome Project unlocking our genetic code was originally funded through congressionally directed spending. The WIC program was as well. In Vermont, congressionally directed spending has helped build affordable housing, rehabilitate our downtowns, and promote community and economic development throughout the State.

This is not a new concept. Congress passed the first bill containing an earmark in 1790, 231 years ago. The Cape Henry lighthouse guided boats to safety for almost 100 years, and it stands today. It is the fourth oldest lighthouse in the United States, and has been listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places and designated as a National Historic Landmark. It is a destination for tourists still today.

Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have pointed to congressionally directed spending as the source of our country's increasing national debt, but this is not the case. This spending rarely exceeded 1 percent of all discretionary spending, and discretionary spending is only one-third of all Federal spending. So, approximately 1 percent of one-third of all Federal spending was congressionally directed. As noted by the New York Times, this is little more than a rounding error when considering the entire Federal budget of the United States of America.

Congressionally directed spending was never a source of new money that was tacked onto appropriations bills. These projects had to fit under our budgetary caps, caps that were agreed to on a bipartisan basis. After more than a decade, it is clear that banning congressionally directed spending did not decrease Federal spending or our national debt, and that is because it was not the cause of our debt. All the ban did was remove a very effective tool for Members to advance important projects in their States.

The late and former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Robert C. Byrd, once said that the subject of congressionally directed spending ``broaches the most serious of Constitutional questions . . . [w]ho shall control expenditures from the public treasuries--the unaccountable bureaucrats in the Executive Branch or the representatives of the people?''

Article I, section 9 of the Constitution says: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of Appropriations made by law.'' Congress holds the power of the purse. By banning the practice of congressionally directed spending, Congress ceded this power to the executive branch, and I believe it has hurt our ability to pass appropriations bills into law.

Vice Chairman Shelby and I work hard to incorporate the recommendations and priorities of all 100 Senators into our annual appropriations bills. We have worked hard to return the appropriations process to regular order, and we are making progress. Passing our annual appropriations bills is one of the most important jobs we do. The funding these bills provide impacts every corner of every State, from highway dollars to healthcare centers. But without the ability to influence where

the funds are spent, Members seem to have lost incentive to debate these bills. That is one of the reasons why we constantly face the threat of a government shutdown each fiscal year or that are forced to package these bills into an omnibus in a take-it-or-leave it form. This is no way to govern. Members must have a stake in these bills.

In 2007, we instituted major reforms for accountability and transparency to the process of congressionally directed spending. We had to certify that neither we nor any member of our immediate family would financially benefit from the requests we made. And we required each earmark to be clearly identified in the committee and conference reports. These reforms brought new transparency to the process, and I fully supported them. These rules remain in place today in rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Today I am announcing that the Senate Appropriations Committee will again accept requests for congressionally directed spending items on a bipartisan basis, and we will do so in a manner that promotes transparency and accountability. In addition to adhering to rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, we will put a 1-percent cap on all congressionally directed spending items and ban congressionally directed spending items to for-profit entities.

We will require Senators to make their requests public on their websites, and we will make public any items that are actually funded in the appropriations bills. The Senate Appropriations Committee will also ask GAO to audit a sample of enacted congressionally directed spending items in order to increase accountability for the projects that are funded and to restore the trust of the American people in this process.

Congress holds the power of the purse. We should use it responsibly and transparently to address the needs of our communities.

I want to thank the distinguished majority leader for putting Samantha Power on the agenda this week. I think she is extraordinarily well qualified, and I look forward to voting for her.

Madam President, I see my distinguished colleague on the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I am glad to hear the distinguished Senator, my colleague and friend, speak about the problems on the southern border.

I feel for President Biden because he inherited a horrible mess from his predecessor, a man who said that he would build a wall, which he didn't--a wall that would stop illegal immigration, which it didn't-- and that he would build it, saying he would get the money from Mexico, knowing that he would not get 1 cent from Mexico, but he repeated that falsehood hundreds of times around this country. He also actually took money away from housing for families on our military bases, from families living in substandard housing. It was money that Congress had voted for to repair the housing to make it safe, to remove lead, mold, and so on. He took that money to build a wall that he claimed, as I said, Mexico would pay for.

When I was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we passed by about a 2-to-1 margin, after months and months and months of debate and work, an immigration bill here in the

Senate. Republicans and Democrats voted for it, and it certainly could have solved all of these problems.

When it went over to the House of Representatives, there were enough votes to pass it there, but it would not be with a majority of the Republicans. The Republican Speaker said that he could not bring up the bill, even though it had passed, because it was violating a rule very sacred to them, a rule named after Dennis Hastert, a former Speaker, and they could not violate the great respect they had for Dennis Hastert and his rule. So, even though it had passed, they did not bring it up. Of course, subsequent to that, Dennis Hastert went to prison for child abuse.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for not more than 5 minutes regarding Shalanda Young.

Mr. President, I am proud to be here on the Senate floor to offer my strong support for Shalanda Young to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, as I have spoken about her earlier before the committee.

She has worked on the House Appropriations Committee for nearly 14 years. She has been the House Appropriations staff director since 2017.

It is from my position on the Appropriations Committee that I got to know her very well. I can tell you, without any reservation, there is no one better suited for this position. Her deep understanding of, really, the often arcane Federal budget process, her years of experience on the Appropriations Committee, her tenacity, and her dedication to public service will serve the Agency and the American people.

I think after we had the last closedown of the government--I believe the longest in history--we ended up, finally, with four of us meeting for several weeks in my office here in the Capitol. When we forged the agreement to reopen, Senator Shelby and myself, Congresswomen Lowey and Granger from the House--we were chair and vice chair of our respective committees--but, most importantly, Shalanda Young was there for the House, as was Chuck Kieffer, and she had an opportunity to work for the Senate. Her knowledge of the intricacies of that and her ability to help us reach agreement were absolutely essential.

Ms. Young began her career in public service in 2001 at the National Institutes of Health. She first came to work on Capitol Hill as a detailee for the House Appropriations Committee in 2005. She came back as a professional staff member in 2007. She worked her way up in the committee over the years. She helped develop a budget for and conducted oversight of key Agencies. That has given her a critical insight into the operation of some of our Nation's most important Agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services Administration. She even served as a staff director for the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, which covers the budget for Congress.

Ms. Young became staff director of the House Appropriations Committee in 2017, coincidentally the same year I became vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee. But she has helped the House navigate some of the most difficult issues before the Chamber. As I said, she was a critical player in helping to end the longest Federal shutdown in history in 2019, and she was instrumental in crafting 2020 bipartisan COVID relief bills.

She has a reputation as a tough but fair negotiator. That is high praise on Capitol Hill because she gets it from both Republicans and Democrats. I can attest to the truth of these statements. I have seen these skills firsthand.

I have already said that the Office of Management and Budget is one of the most powerful government Agencies that most Americans have never heard of. That is true. It wields incredible influence on not just the Federal budget but over policies that affect people's lives.

We need people like Shalanda Young to help steer the Agency in these important decisions. That is why I voted yes on the recent motion, and that is why I want to see her in that position as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to one of Vietnam's highest ranking military officers, Senior Lieutenant General Nguyen Chi Vinh.

General Vinh, who has served as Vietnam's Deputy Minister of National Defense since 2009, has played an indispensable role in the reconciliation between Vietnam and the United States. After more than four decades of military service, he is finally nearing retirement from the Ministry of National Defense.

General Vinh was born in 1957. He studied at the Institute of Military Technology before embarking on his long and distinguished career in the Vietnamese People's Army. His father, General Nguyen Chi Thanh, came from a humble family and rose to become a decorated military officer and politician. Today, one of Hanoi's main thoroughfares bears his name.

As someone who lived through the Vietnam war era, I remember it a catastrophe for both countries. The more than 58,000 American soldiers and other servicemembers who died, whose names are etched in the granite Vietnam Veterans Memorial, are only part of the story. We remember their families and the many tens of thousands who returned home with severe disabilities.

In Vietnam, virtually no family was unscathed. Hundreds of thousands are still missing among the estimated 3 million Vietnamese who died. The majority were civilians, whose families suffered grievous losses and severe hardships as the fighting raged around them. Many of their stories remain untold.

In the decades since, memories of that time have faded and the world's attention has turned elsewhere. Yet during the past quarter century since the normalization of relations with Vietnam, there has been a sustained effort by both countries to address some of the worst legacies of the war. By doing so, we have built a new partnership and set an example for other former enemies.

It began in the late 1980s with the first use of the Leahy War Victims Fund by the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, to assist people with severe war-related disabilities. That was authorized by President George H. W. Bush, after he and I discussed the need to assist Vietnamese who had been injured during the war. It led to funding by the State Department to locate and destroy unexploded landmines and bombs, which litter the Vietnamese countryside and have maimed and killed tens of thousands of innocent people, including children, since the war ended.

Nearly 15 years ago, those war legacy programs expanded to address the cruel legacy of Agent Orange, and it is in this that General Vinh and I became acquainted.

Since then, General Vinh has been my principal Vietnamese counterpart in working to address the legacy of dioxin contamination at former U.S. military bases and the needs of Vietnamese with severe physical and cognitive disabilities resulting from exposure to dioxin. I consider him a friend and am grateful for the hospitality he has shown me, my wife Marcelle, and other Senators when we have visited Vietnam.

From 1961 to 1971, the U.S. Air Force sprayed nearly 19 million gallons of herbicides in Vietnam, of which at least 11 million gallons were Agent Orange, in an effort to defoliate trees and shrubs and kill agricultural crops that were providing cover and food to North Vietnamese soldiers. Decades later, we learned that the Agent Orange was contaminated with dioxin, which can cause problems with reproduction, development, and the immune system. Dioxin can disrupt hormones and lead to cancer. It is also a persistent pollutant that can remain in the environment for many years.

Millions of Vietnamese were exposed, and hundreds of thousands suffered severe physical and cognitive disabilities. My wife Marcelle and I have met three generations of Agent Orange victims, from young children to their parents and grandparents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans who served in Vietnam were also exposed, and thousands have been battling cancers for years.

Fortunately, thanks to studies funded by the Ford Foundation, it was possible to identify key ``hotspots'' with significant contamination, and working closely with General Vinh and USAID, we cleaned up the contaminated soil and sediment at the former U.S. airbase in Da Nang. Seven years and $110 million dollars later, it is once again a busy commercial airport. In fact, Air Force One landed there in 2017, when President Trump visited Vietnam. That project would not have been possible without the leadership and perseverance of General Nguyen Chi Vinh, and I will never forget visiting the site with him when we formally launched the project in 2014.

Since then, we have moved on to Bien Hoa, on the outskirts of Ho Chi Minh City, the site of the largest U.S. airbase during the war where Agent Orange was stored and loaded onto airplanes. Today it is a shadow of what it once was, and it is contaminated with dioxin that has been leaching into the nearby Dong Nai River for half a century.

In 2019, General Vinh and I, along with Deputy Prime Minister Truong Hoa Binh and U.S. Ambassador Daniel Kritenbrink, and in the presence of eight other U.S. Senators, inaugurated a joint U.S.-Vietnam project to clean up Bien Hoa, including a U.S. commitment to contribute $300 million over 10 years, half from the U.S. Department of Defense and half from USAID. I had several conversations with Secretary of Defense James Mattis about Bien Hoa, and the Pentagon's contribution is the result of his recognition that we have a responsibility and a national interest in helping Vietnam address war legacy issues.

At the same time, USAID launched a 5-year, $65 million effort to expand our health and disability programs, which are being implemented in eight provinces that were sprayed with Agent Orange.

Over more than four decades, the Government of Vietnam has provided essential access and support in locating the remains of hundreds of American MIAs. This year, we are embarking on a 5-year, $15 million program, jointly funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and USAID, to help the Vietnamese locate and identify some of their own people missing or killed during the war.

Much has been written, and I suspect more will be, about the collaboration between our two countries in addressing the legacies of the Vietnam war. Issues that for years were a cause of anger and resentment are today examples of how two former enemies can work together for the betterment of the people of both countries. These projects opened the door for the United States and Vietnam to cooperate on a wide array of other issues, from climate change and wildlife trafficking, to public health and regional security.

Tens of thousands of Vietnamese students are studying in the United States, and we are supporting institutions of higher education in Vietnam.

This has been possible because of the efforts of many people over many years. Senators John McCain and John Kerry played an instrumental role in the normalization of relations. By doing so, they set the stage for both countries to build trust based on mutual respect by addressing sensitive war legacy issues, which Ambassadors of both countries have also strongly encouraged.

It is in this that Senior Lieutenant General Nguyen Chi Vinh has built his own legacy. The partnership that has developed from our cooperation on war legacies and which today extends to programs jointly funded and implemented by Vietnam's Ministry of Defense and the U.S. Department of Defense would not have been possible without General Vinh's vision, his leadership, and his good will. For that we owe him our lasting appreciation and respect.