Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, for the second year in a row, the State of Mississippi is the center of the universe for college baseball. Senator Hyde-Smith and I are proud and delighted this afternoon to congratulate not one but two Mississippi collegiate baseball teams on becoming national champions for their respective divisions this year. Those teams are the Ole Miss Rebels and the Pearl River Community Wildcats.

It was just last year that the Mississippi State Bulldogs won their first-ever College World Series national championship. And with the new year, came even more successful baseball in Mississippi.

Last month, after sweating out selection day, Ole Miss went to the NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament and won 10 out of 11 games, sweeping Oklahoma in the final round of the College World Series to become national champions.

Just weeks earlier, Pearl River Community College, located in Poplarville, MS, defeated Madison College of Wisconsin in the Division II Junior College World Series. After spending the entire season ranked in the top five, Pearl River won five out of six games in the playoffs, defeating Florida State College at Jacksonville, Lansing Community College, and, finally, Madison College in a three-game series finale.

The Wildcats dropped game one to Madison, but then roared back with a 19-to-1 victory in game 2 and a decisive 7-to-2 victory in game 3. They finished their season with a sparkling record of 45 wins and 11 losses.

Just think about this for a moment. Three college baseball national titles in 2 years for the State of Mississippi.

Congratulations also go to the University of Southern Mississippi, which had an excellent season and even hosted their first super regional in Hattiesburg, ending with a record of 47 wins and 19 losses.

This year's Ole Miss championship run is a comeback story for the ages. After spending the early parts of the season ranked No. 1 in the Nation, the Rebels went into a deep slump in April, losing 4 straight series and 11 out of 16 games. In May, they were among the last 4 teams to be included in the field of 64. But they had finished the regular season hot, and some people believed they just might carry that momentum into the playoffs. And they did, outscoring their opponents 46 runs to 11 down the stretch.

Led by Coach Mike Bianco and Team Captain Tim Elko, Ole Miss beat one team after another--first Arizona and Miami in the regional, then Southern Miss in the Hattiesburg Super Regional, then Auburn and Arkansas in the College World Series, which led to a final best two out of three face-off with Oklahoma.

Game one was a slugfest. The Rebels put up 16 hits, including back- to-back-to-back home runs in the eighth inning by T.J. McCants, Calvin Harris, and Justin Bench--a stunning feat not seen at the College World Series since 1998.

On the mound, the Ole Miss pitchers kept things quiet. Jack Dougherty, Mason Nichols, and Josh Mallitz gave up just three runs, securing a 10-to-3 victory.

The decisive game two was a lot closer. For the first five innings, it was a pitchers' duel between Ole Miss's Hunter Elliot of Tupelo, MS, and Cade Horton of Norman, OK. The bats finally got going for Ole Miss in the sixth when Jacob Gonzalez hit a solo home run. The Sooners quickly answered by knocking in two runs, making it 2 to 1, Oklahoma. In the eighth inning, Ole Miss tied things up with hits by T.J. McCants, Justin Bench, and Jacob Gonzalez, and scored two additional runs on wild pitches, making it 4 to 2.

In the top of the ninth, Brandon Johnson took the mound for Ole Miss and closed out the night with three strikeouts, capping off a magical run for the men from Oxford.

``From last team in, to last team standing,'' exclaimed the announcer.

And then to Oxford they returned, bringing with them the 30th NCAA championship in Ole Miss history.

The day after winning the title, these national champions were welcomed back to campus by crowds of jubilant supporters as they walked the hallowed pathway known as the Walk of Champions.

On behalf of the entire State of Mississippi, I commend the Ole Miss team and their staff on this historic achievement. Justin Bench, Calvin Harris, Kevin Graham, Kemp Alderman, and Dylan DeLucia all were named to the NCAA's All-Tournament Team.

Dylan DeLucia received the Jack Diesing, Sr. Most Outstanding Player of the Series award for pitching a complete game shutout against the Arkansas Razorbacks, becoming the first recipient of the award in Ole Miss history. And Captain Tim Elko became only the sixth player in history to earn four hits in a Men's College World Series final--not to mention his 46 career home runs, the second most in school history.

I also congratulate Mike Bianco, who has coached Ole Miss for 22 seasons and led the team to 18 playoff appearances,

including two trips to the College World Series in Omaha. He has rightly been named National Coach of the Year by the American Baseball Coaches Association and the Collegiate Baseball Newspaper. He never gave up on his team, and he inspired his players to persevere through the tough times.

I wish Coach Bianco the best of luck this week as he now leads Team USA at an international tournament in the Netherlands, where he is joined by two Ole Miss players, Hunter Elliott and Jacob Gonzalez.

I also congratulate Michael Avalon, Head Coach for the Pearl River Wildcats, who, after leading his team to a national title, was named National Coach of the Year for Division II junior colleges.

I commend the University of Mississippi, Pearl River Community College, the University of Southern Mississippi, and Mississippi State University for carrying on Mississippi's winning tradition.

Two years ago, after a season cut short by the COVID pandemic, Ole Miss catcher Hayden Dunhurst boldly said:

I have never been a part of a team so special . . . We will

bring a National Championship to Oxford.

And so they did. Congratulations and Hotty Toddy.

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

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I certainly hope we don't have to prolong this for very long, but I can report to Members of the Senate that there are Members on this side who have concerns about this particular nomination. Perhaps those matters can be resolved in short order. I certainly understand my friend from Massachusetts and his support for this nominee, and I respect that. In addition, there are larger issues involving actions and conduct of the State Department in Europe writ large that go beyond this nominee. Again, I hope the State Department will work with us on those important concerns. But for those stated reasons, I do object at this point.

Madam President, in a few moments, the Senate will vote on the confirmation of Mary Boyle to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC. It appears that the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, finally has the votes lined up for confirmation of Ms. Boyle and that she will be elevated to this position. I think this is a decision that Members of the Democratic Party and the administration will come to regret and Americans, in general, will come to regret.

Recently, the Commerce Committee failed to report Ms. Boyle's nomination favorably. All Democrats voted aye; all Republicans voted no.

I think Members should understand this. CPSC plays a vital role in ensuring the safety of American consumers. For this reason, I have significant concerns about major administrative failures at the agency during Ms. Boyle's tenure as Executive Director there, including the improper disclosure of unredacted manufacturer and consumer data.

An investigation I led as chairman of the Commerce Committee last Congress determined that the unauthorized release of this data, which violated section 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, was the result of insufficient training, ineffective management, and poor information technology implementation.

All of these failings at the CPSC were under Mary Boyle's watch as the primary career official charged with the day-to-day administration of the Agency's business, and yet today we are being asked to elevate her to an even more important and responsible position at CPSC.

I am also deeply troubled by the CPSC's curtailing of port inspections for several months beginning with the pandemic and Ms. Boyle's involvement in this decision. In addition, she presided over the deficient and prolonged process of fully returning CPSC staff to work at these ports. So the inspections were not getting done. There are now hundreds, if not thousands, of unsafe products that entered the country under Ms. Boyle's watch, and we still lack a clear plan from the CPSC on how those dangerous products will be removed from the market.

This nominee has failed to demonstrate strong and effective leadership in her current position as executive director of the CPSC. Yet the administration and, apparently, the majority leader of the Senate are inexplicably trying to promote her to a higher position of trust and authority.

In light of these many problems at the Agency associated with Ms. Boyle's leadership, I think her confirmation will be a mistake, and I think my Democratic colleagues and the administration will come to regret this decision.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I commend the Senator from Indiana and join him and my other colleagues in decrying the legislation that we will be asked to move to the floor tomorrow. But before I speak on the substance of the bill, it needs to be reiterated why this bill is even before us.

The only reason we are debating this bill today is because of the extreme and unprecedented breach of protocol that took place at the Supreme Court. The leaked draft in the Dobbs case was a full-blown assault on the U.S. Supreme Court and on the independence of our judiciary. It was an attempt to incite mob pressure against the Justices, which has, in part, succeeded by inciting pressure against the Justices in an attempt to bully them into changing their final votes.

And I do trust, based on the information that we have about the nine Justices, that that attempt will not be successful.

We saw over the weekend disturbing videos of protesters outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices. There is growing concern for the safety of our Supreme Court Justices and the safety of their families.

This is shameful. A Supreme Court Justice should never have to fear for his or her safety or the safety of their families for doing their jobs. We, as elected Members of the Congress, are subject to public opinion. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be subject to public opinion and should never have to fear for their safety.

The leak and the mob reaction should be condemned by both parties in the strongest possible terms, and yet there have been very few voices on the other side of the aisle addressing this matter. Certainly, the majority leader of the Senate has not said a word about the outrage of the leak or the mob protests, nor has the President of the United States.

What happened to respect and care for our institutions?

Instead of protecting the Court, our Democratic friends seem to be, whether inadvertently or not, legitimizing this attack on the Court by moving to consider extreme legislation which is out of touch with the mainstream of Americans.

So now let me speak briefly about the legislation. It has been said that

this is a mere codification of the Court's holding in Roe v. Wade. That is, in fact, not the case. Instead, the bill that we will be asked to move to the floor tomorrow is an attempt to expand abortion dramatically across this country, to expand abortion in a way that only a small handful of the most repressive governments on the face of the Earth permit.

The bill would eliminate even the most modest protections for unborn children across all 50 States. It would force all 50 States to allow gruesome late-term abortions that even the political left all over Europe have long ago outlawed.

As my friend from Indiana said earlier, some 47 European countries generally ban abortion after the first 15 weeks. Banning abortion after 14 weeks are our allies of France and Spain; banning abortion after 13 weeks, Finland; banning abortion after 12 weeks, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland--certainly not governments that are thought of as prisoners of the extreme right. The nation of Portugal generally bans abortion after 10 weeks.

Of course, as we know, the Mississippi law that brought this case to the Supreme Court, the Dobbs case, has a slightly more permissive provision than even these friends that I just mentioned from Western Europe. It would be a 15-week ban.

But this bill that we are asked to vote on tomorrow, which certainly will fail, would push America further outside of the global mainstream than we already are--and we already are way outside this mainstream.

Because of scientific advances, we know that an unborn child's heartbeat begins at 6 weeks. We know a child can feel pain as early as 20 weeks. Many of us, including my wife and I, have put the sonograms of our grandchildren, have displayed them on our refrigerators in our homes. What we know about the development of children--their faces, their eyelashes--has brought about a change in the minds of many Americans.

In 1996, 56 percent of Americans called themselves pro-choice. Only 33 percent said they were pro-life. But because of science and because of those sonograms and because of what we know about their ability to feel pain--their movements, their eyes blinking, their eyelashes--today the two sides are just about evenly split, pro-choice and pro-life. But even those who identify themselves as pro-choice are deeply opposed to late-term abortions. And make no mistake about it, if somehow the Schumer bill tomorrow were to pass, late-term abortions would be legal in all 50 States.

Eighty-one percent of Americans think that late-term abortions should be illegal. Our friends on the Democratic side should think about that. This bill goes against 81 percent of American public opinion in that regard. Sixty-five percent say abortions should be illegal in the second trimester--not the third trimester, in the second trimester--65 percent of Americans.

I hope our Democratic friends across the aisle think about that before they vote for this extreme piece of legislation brought by the Democratic leader, which would put us in league with the People's Republic of China with all of their respect for life, with North Korea with its deplorable record of respecting human life. With those two countries and five others on the extreme left, it would put us in league with them. That is not where the American people want us to be.

If a State has a 24-hour waiting period, for example, the Schumer bill tomorrow would outlaw that. Taxpayer funding of abortion, the Hyde amendment, which prohibits this and has done so for decades and decades, would be abolished. The parental rights of teenage girls to have a say and to be able to counsel their daughters on the pivotal decision about having an abortion would be eliminated by this.

Religious exemptions. A practicing Catholic, who deep in their soul understands this to be infanticide, would be required, if they are a physician, to perform an abortion with no religious exemption.

Is that what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are hoping for? It is what they would get if the Schumer bill were to pass.

This is not a serious attempt at consensus building. This bill simply reflects, regrettably, the iron grip that Planned Parenthood has on one of our major political parties in this country.

We will reject this effort tomorrow. I commend my colleagues who intend to stand with the American people and vote no on this attempt to rank us with the worst regimes on the face of the globe and impose late-term abortions on the entire country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there are already significant taxpayer mandates in the bill, as it is limiting award size, prohibiting funds from going to so-called foreign entities, such as China, and clawback provisions.

Why do we need chips?

We need chips for Javelin missiles. We need them for--major weapons systems contain thousands of chips. The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer includes 250,000 chips.

It would make it much harder for Americans to produce these chips if the Sanders amendment were to pass.

I urge a no vote, and I join my friend from Ohio in urging a no vote.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise this evening to urge my colleagues to oppose the nomination of Alvaro Bedoya to be a Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission.

Recently, the Commerce Committee deadlocked on this nomination, with all Republican members voting no and all Democratic members voting yes. So it will take a discharge petition here on the Senate floor to move Mr. Bedoya's nomination further. If our Democratic colleagues are successful, Mr. Bedoya will become the fifth tie-breaking Commissioner of the FTC.

Let me just observe, as someone who has been on the Commerce Committee for years and years here in the U.S. Senate, that the Federal Trade Commission, which is where Mr. Bedoya would become a member, has always approached issues and addressed the public in a spirit of bipartisanship.

Unlike with the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, where we are used to the vote being 2 to 3, in a very partisan manner--that is the FCC for you--we haven't had that, over time, with the Federal Trade Commission. The Federal Trade Commission has had a tradition of bipartisanship. They have had a tradition of issuing policy statements with all five of them participating and issuing statements to the Commerce Committee, before testimony, with the one statement speaking for the entire Federal Trade Commission.

Mr. Bedoya's records show that he would bring that sort of partisanship that we have had at the FCC to the Federal Trade Commission, and I hope we can avoid that. As a matter of fact, Mr. Bedoya has publicly supported eliminating the longstanding bipartisan policy statements, and he has advocated for excluding minority party Commissioners from Agency investigations. This would be a troubling step for a Commission that has been bipartisan.

Mr. Bedoya has a long history of divisive social media statements. For example, he called for the elimination of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. He has called for the elimination of ICE. That is how extreme and out in left field this nominee, Alvaro Bedoya, is. He has called on local law enforcement agencies not to cooperate with ICE. So, if you are a local police department, just don't cooperate with the Federal Agency in charge of immigration and customs enforcement. He has accused Cabinet-level Departments of committing human rights abuses. He has even demanded that several of our colleagues here in the U.S. Senate resign.

He is a hothead, plainly said--more appropriate for a talk radio host of the far left rather than the fifth vote on the Federal Trade Commission.

Additionally, as the Judiciary Committee continues to consider a Supreme Court nomination, I think it is instructive to recall that, in the fall of 2020, this nominee, Mr. Bedoya, urged Senate Democrats to boycott the Judiciary Committee's hearings on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to serve on the Supreme Court.

Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be outraged if Republican members of the Judiciary Committee actually refused to attend the committee's hearings which occurred last week. This is exactly what Mr. Bedoya, the FTC nominee, called on the Democrats to do just 18 months ago. Clearly, he is out of the mainstream.

This is not the temperament we need to send to the FTC, particularly at a time when the Agency's current leadership has pursued a more partisan agenda as of late. We need to get away from that trend.

Then, beyond temperament, Mr. Bedoya has demonstrated a lack of experience and a lack of knowledge on the major policy areas that he would be responsible for regulating as an FTC Commissioner. Although the FTC is the Nation's premier regulator of consumer privacy, Mr. Bedoya's experience on the topic of privacy comes from his time on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee. There, he largely dealt with issues of government surveillance, which falls outside the FTC's jurisdiction. So even the limited experience Mr. Bedoya has gives him no help in dealing with Federal Trade Commission issues.

Through the Commerce Committee's vetting process, Mr. Bedoya has also shown a limited knowledge of the competition and antitrust issues that are at the heart of today's major policy debates at the FTC.

I don't want the FTC to lack a tie-breaking vote forever--that is not the reason every Republican on the Commerce Committee voted no--but I do want the Agency to be able to tackle these important issues: to rein in Big Tech's dominance of so many marketplaces; to support a 21st century economy that spurs innovation; and to protect consumers from fraud and other unfair and deceptive business practices. I want the FTC to return to its traditional standing as an Agency driven by bipartisanship and as an Agency that can be counted on to use its broad authority with a steady hand and a measured approach.

I do not believe Mr. Bedoya is the right person to do this. I do not believe someone with his temperament and lack of experience and lack of knowledge about the issues will be able to put the Federal Trade Commission back on track.

For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support any effort to discharge Mr. Bedoya's nomination from the Commerce Committee to the Senate floor.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Would the gentleman yield?

And perhaps we can proceed in colloquy form.

Madam President, I thank my dear friend from Ohio, and I see that we have been joined by my friend from Connecticut.

We did have a bipartisan American delegation in Poland and on the Ukrainian border this weekend. I don't recommend, for tourism purposes, a weekend trip to Eastern Europe and back. It is pretty hard on the anatomy. But I think we flew the colors for the United States, for the U.S. Senate, and made a bipartisan point.

And my colleagues can speak for themselves about exactly where they come down on these issues, but it was clear from the statements we made that the United States can do more and should be doing more.

And I call on the administration tonight to listen to the learned words of the distinguished Senator from Ohio. Yes, I support the MiGs from Poland and from other Eastern European countries. I think the debate got awfully heightened. I don't know why we needed to have an international discussion among allies about that rather than just do it. And maybe that should be a lesson to us on other decisions, which I hope we are about to make, but there are certainly other weapons that we can facilitate in delivering.

Does it make any sense to say that smaller weapons delivered from the United States are OK to fire against the Russian aggressors in Putin's war, but more effective MiG aircraft from NATO somehow would be escalatory?

Listen, our friends are in a war against the remaining dictator and tyrant on the face of the Earth; and if we are not willing--as we are not--to get involved directly in that war, yes, we ought to give our friends the weapons they need to win.

Let me say this: I hear debate in the newspaper and on the media-- even today--about an off-ramp, what Putin would agree to, to simply quit fighting: If we give him some of the territory that he thinks he has already conquered, Ukraine would get to have part of their country, and everything would be OK. It makes me feel like, somehow, I have been transported to 1938 and 1939, hearing talk about what Adolf Hitler might agree to, to avoid a world war.

Madam President, it is my understanding that the distinguished majority leader has a unanimous consent request, and I am willing to defer our debate at this point to accommodate some administrative matters that need to be taken care of.

Absolutely.

Which is often.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for working with the distinguished minority leader and with Senator Graham for bringing this important legislation to the floor tonight.

It says what many of us have been saying for a long time and which I wish the President of the United States, our Commander in Chief, would explicitly say tonight or tomorrow: that Vladimir Putin is a serial war criminal and that he should be investigated by the war crimes authorities internationally, brought to justice, and made to pay not only for his genocide and war crimes of the last 2\1/2\ weeks but also for Aleppo and Grozny and the tens of thousands--tens of thousands--of innocent civilians that he has killed by his desires out of some other century to conquer his neighbors.

I was mentioning 1938 and 1939. When Hitler went into the Sudetenland, he told naive Western governments: That will be the end of it. If we get that, we will have peace in our time.

And some leaders of the allies were convinced that that was true.

Vladimir Putin hasn't even said he is going to stop with Ukraine. So who in the world thinks that if he gets away with this, he will stop there? I don't believe he will, and here is why: Not only Aleppo, not only Grozny, but this is a man who, without question, poisons his political opponents. When they leave the country to get medical treatment, he causes them to be charged for breaking the terms of their parole and puts them in prison. That is his political opponent, Mr. Navalny, who had the temerity to be a candidate for President against Mr. Putin.

We are talking about the Vladimir Putin who authorizes the assassination of former members of the Russian Government because they have the temerity to oppose him. We are talking about the very same person in Vladimir Putin who jails persons for years and years who dare to oppose him or disagree with him publicly, who invents enormous lies and gets some people even in the West to believe it when he broadcasts the enormous lies through his monopoly of the media.

This man can be stopped in this Ukrainian war, and we are going to hear tomorrow morning from a courageous leader who has risen beyond the expectations of so many people in the free world, President Zelenskyy, and I intend to be there along with my colleagues wishing him the best.

I think I can say for our delegation that we might have nuances on how these things can be done, but we are united on ideas, like getting the Polish MiGs somehow into the hands of the Ukrainian fighter pilots who can then use them to win the war, the equipment from other NATO countries and European countries enhancing Ukraine's air defense, and sending more troops to harden the borders and the eastern flank of our NATO Allies.

I would say to the President of the United States: Mr. Biden, you have been too risk averse, too late from time to time, from step to step on all of the sanctions that we have needed, on the delivery of weapons.

We brought the administration along, but they have been a day late or a couple of days late or a week late. It is time for us to show international leadership on this. Even today, almost 3 weeks into the war, we have not yet dropped the full load of sanctions on Russia. We need to do that, and I call on the President and the administration to listen to those of us who were just in Eastern Europe.

History shows that weakness breeds war, instead of pacifying tyrants, weakness emboldens tyrants like Vladimir Putin. The good news is that with the help of NATO and Western arms, the Ukrainian military has defied all expectations. The intelligence reports that we have heard on the public media--this is nothing secret--was that in 3 or 4 days the Ukrainian military would be overrun by this vast Russian military behemoth.

That has not happened, in fact. These people, defending their homeland, defending their country, through the leadership of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have shown courage. They refuse to flee, and they have rallied the American people and the entire world in a lesson of leadership.

If President Zelenskyy survives until the morning, I will be cheering him from Capitol Hill on his remarks, just as the British Parliament did last week. This war is far from over. Suffering and dying refugees will continue every day, and I call on President Biden to recognize that Vladimir Putin is not simply at war with Ukraine, but they are at war with the entire free world, and this is our best opportunity to stop him. Our Baltic allies in NATO understand this. They know they can be next on Putin's kill list.

Now is our moment to make sure this is the last time that Putin and his band of war criminals invade a sovereign country. We watched it happen with the Transnistria. We watched it happen with the Republic of Georgia, in South Ossetia, and in Abkhazia. We watched it happen with the Donbas and with Crimea.

It is time to stop Vladimir Putin's expansionism. We should be enabling the Ukrainians to defend their own airspace, and we have not yet done all we can do. We need to be creative, but we need to take calculated risks because the future of the rules-based world order is at stake.

Western deterrence has so far failed, and now Putin is thinking he can succeed in shredding the rule book of the post-Cold War international order. It is up to us, and it is up to our Commander In Chief to restore faith in that order and to protect the free world.

And I am glad to be joined on the floor with my friend the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut and was honored to join him and our other colleagues on the trip this last weekend to Eastern Europe.

The Senator from Connecticut is correct to commend the massive efforts to prevent the humanitarian suffering in Ukraine and in Poland.

The dozens of nongovernmental organizations, such as the World Food Kitchen, the USAID Agency, a part of our Federal Government, the World Food Programme, the diplomatic corps, both of the United States and our allies, and certainly our American military, the 82nd Airborne.

But let me conclude by making this profoundly important point: What we have heard tonight on both sides of the aisle are bipartisan calls for us to do more.

In this system that we have under our Constitution, we have one Commander in Chief at a time, and we have heard from Democrats and Republicans tonight on the floor of the U.S. Senate that we need to do more. This administration needs to do more. This Commander in Chief can do more and needs to do more to help this small country preserve their freedom, to win against this war criminal and his unprovoked aggression, and to preserve the international order that has governed civilized nations for decades and decades.

I hope the administration is hearing the bipartisan message that we bring back from our observations and that we are hearing from our constituents.

I yield back to my dear friend from Ohio.

Mr. President, I rise today during this Black History Month to call attention to two remarkable daughters of the State of Mississippi, two basketball legends: Lusia Harris and Ruthie Bolton. These two Mississippi athletes took women's basketball to new heights. And they continue to inspire countless young girls to follow their dreams in sports.

Mr. President, last week, when the Academy Awards announced their nominations, we learned that a New York Times documentary on the life of basketball legend Lusia Harris had been nominated for an Oscar.

This hit documentary has already received nearly 700,000 views on YouTube, where viewers can find it under the name of ``The Queen of Basketball.''

I was certainly thrilled to hear the news of this nomination, and I encourage every American to watch the 20-minute film. It is a story of American grit and determination and the story of an extraordinary Mississippian breaking multiple glass ceilings in the world of sports.

Known by her friends as Lucy, Ms. Harris led an extraordinary life, becoming a three-time national champion and Olympian and the first and only woman officially drafted by the NBA--the first and only woman ever officially drafted by the NBA.

Unfortunately, we lost Ms. Harris, all too soon, last month at the age of 66. Lucy Harris, a Mississippi Delta native, was the 10th of 11 children born to sharecropper parents. As a child, she would stay up past her bedtime watching the basketball greats: Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Oscar Robertson. In her words, ``I wanted to grow up and shoot that ball just like they would shoot it, and I did.''

At a towering height of 6 foot 3 inches, Lucy became a superstar at Amanda Elzy High School in Greenwood, MS. When she graduated in 1973, title IX was fresh off the books, opening up options for college basketball.

Lucy was quickly recruited to Delta State University on a scholarship, where she led her team to three consecutive national championships as the

team's only African-American player. As she put it:

When I got the ball, I knew my job was to score. And more

than likely, I would score.

Lucy averaged 25.9 points per game and 14.4 rebounds while she was at Delta State, where the women's game started to sell twice as many tickets as the men's. Her raw talent and leadership lifted the lady statesman to a record of 109 wins and 6 losses during her tenure--109 and 6. And to this day, she remains Delta State's alltime scoring leader with 2,981 point.

It should be no surprise that Lucy was recruited for the 1976 Olympics in Montreal. There, she made history by scoring the first points ever in a women's Olympic basketball game and led Team USA to a silver medal.

If that wasn't enough, the following year, she was recruited by the New Orleans Jazz, a men's basketball team; but by then, she had married her high school sweetheart, George Stewart, and was pregnant with their first child. And so she turned down the chance to play for the New Orleans Jazz.

Instead, she returned to Delta State University, where she served as an assistant coach and earned a master's in education. She later became a high school teacher and girls' basketball coach at her alma mater in Greenwood. And in between, she spent 2 years coaching women's basketball at Texas Southern University in Houston.

Lucy Harris' name is forever written in the history books. In 1992, she became the first Black woman to be inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame and was later ushered into the Women's Basketball Hall of Fame and the International Women's Sports Hall of Fame.

She is survived by her children: Christopher, Eddie, Christina, and Crystal, all of whom have won college degrees and who carry on her memory.

If the WNBA had existed in the 1970s, I think we can safely assume Lucy Harris would have continued to dominate the court for many years. She did not get that chance. The WNBA would not come into existence until 1997.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, today I honor an exceptional member of the U.S. Navy, LT Jonathan Kokot. I am proud to enter this tribute into the Record as I have had the pleasure of traveling overseas with Jon on multiple occasions, allowing me to see his professionalism, leadership, and dedication to duty firsthand.

Lieutenant Kokot has distinguished himself through his professional character and dedication to serving this Nation in uniform. He has continued to excel in peerless service to our country while assigned to the Navy Senate Liaison Office. A native of Houston, TX, Jon is a 2013 graduate of Vanderbilt University and was commissioned through the Naval ROTC program. He completed primary flight school at VT-27 in Corpus Christi, TX, followed by advanced flight training at HT-28 in Milton, FL.

Lieutenant Kokot joined the Battlecats of Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron Seven Three (HSM) 73 in April, 2016. He deployed to the Western Pacific onboard USS Sampson (DDG 102), an Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer, in September 2016 in support of the Oceania Maritime Security Initiative (OMSI) and received a Humanitarian Service Medal for his part in disaster relief following an earthquake in New Zealand. On Jon's second deployment, his helicopter squadron was embarked on USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), and later USS Halsey (DDG 97), for a deployment to the CENTCOM and INDOPACOM areas of responsibility.

Lieutenant Kokot has also been published in ``Rotor Review'' magazine. His article, ``Deployment: A Junior Officer's Perspective,'' was recognized as the article of the year in 2018. That article discussed the ``beauty'' of flight deck operations on a modern aircraft carrier, writing: ``one only has to watch the flight deck during launch and recovery of jets to realize there's a half-century worth of training involved in each evolution. The movement of six different types of aircraft, including fixed-wing and helicopters, transformed from parked and folded to engines full blast within minutes, is mind- boggling. Five-thousand people aboard this floating fortress work around-the-clock to make this dance happen, and each member plays his or her role in a system of cogs which drives the most powerful peace machine on the planet.''

Lieutenant Kokot also models a commitment to volunteering. During his time in the Senate, he served additionally as a White House social aide, supporting more than 30 high-visibility events. He also served as a mentor and role model for disadvantaged youth who need a helping hand. While in flight training in Corpus Christi, Jon cofounded a mentorship program at Flour Bluff High School and personally provided 10 hours of mentoring per week to students in need. He continued this worthy effort with his involvement in the Big Brothers Big Sisters program, beginning with his first fleet assignment in San Diego and again these last 2 years here in Washington, DC. He regularly spent a dozen hours each month with his young mentee. Jon's interest and empathy for underprivileged youth reflects the influence of his mother, who mentored middle and high school youth for over a dozen years in Houston.

As a legislative liaison in the Navy Senate Liaison Office from February 2019 to February 2022, Lieutenant Kokot performed his duties with distinction, supporting the 116th and 117th U.S. Congresses. Jon's direct assistance provided critical information necessary for the passage of three National Defense Authorization Acts in the U.S. Senate, as well as peace of mind for members concerned about the welfare of our constituents. His efforts also helped ensure the confirmation of the 77th and 78th Navy Secretaries and the 32nd Chief of Naval Operations.

Lieutenant Kokot led 28 congressional delegations across the United States and the globe. He has escorted many Members of this Chamber on travel, as well the personal and professional staff who work in this Chamber. I have had the pleasure of traveling with Jon on a number of these trips. He has gone above and beyond the call of duty to facilitate and successfully execute each trip, despite any weather, aircraft, or diplomatic complications. He consistently performs his duties selflessly, and with a smile.

After 3 years of serving in this vital role, during which he became a very popular fixture on Capitol Hill, Lieutenant Kokot will return to sea duty in USS Tripoli (LPH 10), the Navy's newest America class amphibious assault ship homeported in San Diego, CA. Tripoli was built in Pascagoula, MS, and is the third ship to bear the name of the first U.S. battle fought on foreign soil. This Chamber will keenly feel Lieutenant Kokot's absence. A substantial debt is owed to Jon's parents, Ronald and Pamela Kokot, for the parenting and love that produced this outstanding young leader. Regrettably, Jon's mother passed away when he was 22, but I know that she watches over her son with the same pride that is felt by many Members of Congress. I am grateful for LT Jonathan Kokot's service and his work with my office and the Senate, and I salute him. May he always have ``fair winds and following seas.''

For all who are looking for encouragement about the future of our country, I want to call attention to the Fall 2021 issue of ``Public Service Review,'' produced by the Stennis Center for Public Service and available at www.stennis.gov. ``Public Service Review'' features rising young leaders across the country sharing their own experiences, insights, and aspirations as they engage in public service, both in their communities and around the world. The commitment of these future leaders to keeping our Nation strong and free is truly inspiring.

The eight authors featured in the fall 2021 issue are Alexis Eberlein of Ohio University, Sarah Glaser of the University of South Florida, Hannah Krawczyk of Auburn University, Mia Robertson of Mississippi State University, Alanna Cronk of Georgetown University, Katie Medford of Harvard University, Preeti Chemiti of Princeton University, and Amitoj Kaur of Miami University.

``Public Service Review'' provides young leaders a platform to share stories of both challenge and hope as they focus on causes that draw their unique passions. Their stories are hopegiving to those of us currently engaged in public service and offer valuable perspectives for younger students looking to become involved.

On behalf of my colleagues and fellow members of the Stennis Center Board of Trustees, U.S. Senator Chris Coons, Tom Daffron, U.S. Representative Terri Sewell, and former U.S. Representatives Martha Roby and Gregg Harper, I commend the Stennis Center for this excellent publication and encourage its wide distribution to audiences of all ages.

Mr. President, a few years back, I was watching a television news show and I saw video that struck me as strange. It was a video taken by a security device outside of a residence. Basically, someone is knocking on the door--multiple doors at this particular apartment--and the person knocking on the door basically said this: I am a volunteer for the Democratic Party, and I am here to collect ballots from those who wish to vote Democrat in the next election.

I found that strange until I learned that that practice called ballot harvesting is perfectly legal in the State of California; in other words, it is all right for me as a volunteer for my party to go and knock on the door and say: I am here to collect your absentee ballot but only if you are voting for the candidate I am for.

That is perfectly legal. That is called ballot harvesting. I hope my colleagues can see the opportunity for abuse in this particular practice.

I think most State legislatures that have prohibited this sort of practice see the opportunity for abuse. What is to stop me from saying, ``Knock. Knock. Knock. I am a volunteer for party X, and I am here to collect ballots for people who like to vote for candidates of party X,'' getting those ballots and then perhaps forgetting to turn them in or perhaps losing them or not turning them in at all?

That sort of practice is rife for abuse, and I think it is the reason that most States prohibit that.

Soon we will be taking up a bill, which I am told, if it comes to us in the form that it is in now, would allow that sort of ballot harvesting. To me, if California wants to try this, that is their right. I think it is rife for abuse, and I wish they wouldn't do it. But to impose these sorts of requirements on the rest of the Nation-- our friends on the other side of the aisle propose this week to vote on destroying a provision that has served this Senate and this Republic well for over two centuries, and that is what is known as the filibuster but what I call the consensus-building, 60-vote rule.

This is a time-honored way that this body has been unique, and it has enabled us to craft some of the most long-lasting and widely accepted legislation in the history of this Republic. The Civil Rights Act of 1994 was passed with consensus because this Senate had to have 60 votes or more. In that case, it may have been a 66-vote rule. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed with that consensus-building technique. Medicare, Social Security--time-honored legislation that has served this Republic and its citizens has been passed with this consensus- building tool.

And the leadership of my friends across the aisle would bring a measure to the floor later this week to repeal that and make us just like the House of Representatives, make us just like every Parliament in socialist countries around the world: majority rule, 51 votes--you get it--destroying that one tool that makes us come together and reach compromise.

And it wasn't just bills passed decades ago. In recent years, during your term and mine, Mr. President, we passed major--major--veterans legislation with Johnny Isakson on one side and Bernie Sanders on the other side coming together to build more facilities for veterans, to provide more choice for veterans.

Senator Murray of Washington and former Senator Alexander of Tennessee came together with a major rewrite of an education bill. And we did it with the filibuster in place. We had to come to an agreement. We had to get over 60 votes, and the bills were better because of that.

For that reason, in April of 2017, when a Republican President--a President I voted for--said we ought to think about abolishing the filibuster, 28 Republicans signed a letter saying, ``Let's don't do that.'' They were joined by 32 Democrats and by 1 Independent who caucuses with the Democrats. If I might take the time to read the two short paragraphs:

To Majority Leader McConnell and Democratic Leader Schumer:

We are writing to urge you to support our efforts to

preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions as they

pertain to the right of Members to engage in extended debate

on legislation before the United States Senate. Senators have

expressed a variety of opinions about the appropriateness of

limiting debate when we are considering judicial and

executive branch nominations. Regardless of our past

disagreements on that issue, we are united--

Said these 28 Republicans and 32 Democrats and 1 Independent--

[we are united] in our determination to preserve the ability

of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the

Senate floor.

And now I am told, unless I have been sadly misinformed, that every Senator from across the aisle, save two--save two--are prepared to go against what was specifically said in this letter and, on election laws, say that we are going to make all the decisions in Washington, DC, and take that away from the States.

I heard the distinguished majority leader say earlier today--and I had to ask about it. I heard the distinguished majority leader say Georgia has, of all things, made it a felony to give water to people standing in line to vote. I sat listening to the majority leader in astonishment. How could that possibly be? It turns out that if a charitable group or if a neutral person wants to come and give somebody water in line in Georgia, that is all right. What is against the law in Georgia is for me as candidate X to come up with a bottle of water that says ``Vote for Candidate X'' and give it to somebody in line. Apparently, the people in Georgia in a decision-making role had decided, once you get in line to vote, you are no longer fair game. Politicians should leave you alone once you get in line to vote.

It is not a matter of giving somebody water; it is a matter of electioneering: Hi. I am Roger Wicker, running for Senator. Here is a bottle of water. I hope you will remember me in another 50 feet when you get into the polling place.

The people of Georgia, in their wisdom, have decided that is going too far.

And I am told--and perhaps the distinguished majority leader could come to the floor and correct me and I would stand corrected if he did--I am told that it is against the law in New York to do the same thing. Once you are in line in New York, somebody comes and hands you something that advocates for one candidate or another, that is forbidden not only under Georgia law but under New York law--and I can see the wisdom in that.

Two months ago, there were two amendments to the New York Constitution that were presented before the voters--the November 2 election, 2021, in the State of New York. One would have deleted the current requirements that a citizen be registered to vote for 10 days. In my State, you have to be registered for 30 days. In New York State, it is 10 days. The law is you have to be registered for 10 days or you can't vote. A proposition was put on the ballot to eliminate that, allow same-day registration. Guess what the voters of New York did on that proposal a short 2 months ago. They voted 56.3 percent no against that.

Are we to assume that the voters of the State of New York are Jim Crow on steroids, as the President of the United States would suggest or can we possibly assume they thought a 10-day period before voting was appropriate and that we should keep it that way? I choose to think that we want 30 days in Mississippi. If Maine wants same-day registration and if the voters of New York say 10 days is all right by a double-digit margin, they have the right to do that.

And, again, if the distinguished Democratic leader can prove me wrong, I would accept that and apologize to him for that.

There was another issue on the ballot, and I hope not to take too much more time because I see my distinguished colleague from Louisiana here. The amendment would have deleted the requirement that an absentee voter give an excuse, and these are the excuses you have in New York right now. You have to be able to--unable to appear because of absence from the county or because of illness or physical disability. That is a requirement in New York. Somebody put on the ballot: Delete that requirement. Guess what the voters of New York decided. They decided to keep that requirement by a

vote of, again, double digits--55.03 percent of New Yorkers voted no on that.

I don't condemn them for doing that. I am sure they had a reason for doing that. But I think the leadership of the State of New York and the voters of the State of New York had a right to do that and I don't condemn them for doing it and I would not--I would certainly not break a two-century, consensus-building provision that has withstood the test of time to tell New York they can't do that, to tell all the 50 States that they must conform to an election law that we devise here in Washington, DC.

This is a pivotal week. This is a week that will decide the future not only of the Senate but of the future of our government--our representative government--and the future of our Republic.

I urge my colleagues to think twice about this. Sometimes, I have had to stand up to my party and say: I can't vote with you on that one. I know you want me to. I know I will suffer some reproach for not going with the team, but I am begging Members of both parties to search their hearts and decide in this case we are going to preserve the one consensus-building, compromise-encouraging provision that has withstood the test of time. I hope that happens.

I yield the floor.