Floor Statements

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Maryland, who has been such a leader in the area of human rights and international recognition of the challenges that our world faces today. I do appreciate his leadership and his partnership. We have worked shoulder to shoulder on so many issues.

Yes, I proudly rise with him this afternoon to talk about a very valuable series of meetings that our 12-member delegation had in 4 countries in Europe in recent days. This was Republicans and Democrats from the House and Senate, a truly bipartisan and bicameral delegation--a very large delegation--which I think my colleague will agree made a strong statement on behalf of the United States of America and on behalf of the U.S. House and Senate about the way we view European engagement and our partnership and friendship with the 50-plus member countries of the OSCE and their Parliamentary Assembly.

We visited Vienna, Austria, for the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.

As Senator Cardin mentioned, we met with great success. Yes, I was reelected to the position of vice president, and I appreciate the support of Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate in helping me get those votes to receive another 3-year term there.

Richard Hudson, our colleague from the House of Representatives, has been very active as chairman of Committee No. 1 in the Parliamentary Assembly. He is highly regarded. He was reelected without opposition. So there are two bits of success there.

And then the great piece of work, actually, was with regard to Senator Cardin's initiative on the rising hate and intolerance that we are seeing all around the world, particularly among member countries of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Senator Cardin actually took the lead in challenging the leadership of the Parliamentary Assembly in saying that issues should be discussed.

Even though they weren't in an immediate, like, 3-week crisis mode, they deserved to be brought forward. And Senator Cardin was able to get his resolution considered and passed overwhelmingly, and we made a strong statement on behalf of countering the rising hate and intolerance and countering the use of these things to buttress authoritarianism and to stoke conflict around the world.

We also passed a very important resolution about the tragedy, the outrage that has gone on in Belarus. I can tell you, the opposition party leader from Belarus was in this Capitol building just yesterday talking about the importance of support from places like the United States Congress.

I can tell you, Madam President, that Senator Shaheen and I are about to send a letter to our colleagues asking any and all of us to join a Freedom Caucus for the Belarusian people, the Belarus Freedom Caucus. We asked the opposition leader, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, to tell us whether that would be helpful. She said the formation of this caucus to support the freedom movement in Belarus would be a strong signal. It would be well received and effective on behalf of the opposition leadership there in Belarus.

Then, again, we reiterated our opposition to what Russia has done in Ukraine and particularly to the recent Russian military buildup and ongoing aggression in Ukraine. We did a lot there with the Parliamentary Assembly.

We went on to Estonia, met with leadership there--a former President, the current Prime Minister, other leaders. And, also, we had a chance to travel to the very easternmost part of Estonia and actually travel on the Narva River and look right across to Russia and the security guards there, understanding what our Estonian allies are up against with Putin's Russia staring right across the river at their freedom and democracy.

From there, we joined the Three Seas conference in Sofia, Bulgaria. I can tell you, this is a group of Eastern European former Soviet Bloc countries that are striving to be in charge of their own infrastructure and rely less on the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. I think the fact that 12 Americans showed up, participated, met with Heads of state at that conference made a very strong statement of American support for freedom and for looking westwardly in trying to get their problems solved and their infrastructure needs met.

We also had a very meaningful visit to Norway, where we saw some American-Norwegian defense initiatives. I am very proud of the partnership that this Helsinki Commission--our organ of the American OSCE PA--and the way that we joined together to express our support for freedom, for democracy, for the rule of law, for opposing corruption, both at the petty local level and also at the larger State-sponsored level.

One other thing before I yield back and let my friend close. Particularly in Bulgaria, but also all during our trip, we were met with hearty thanks for the United States leadership in the global Magnitsky Act. This began as an initiative with Senator Cardin, Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and me several years ago directed--during the Obama administration--directed toward individual Russians who had violated human rights and individual liberty in a very outrageous and gross way, allowing us to sanction individuals rather than causing harm to the people of Russia in that case. That has been expanded now to the global level and other countries are adopting this.

But I can tell you, when we arrived in Bulgaria, we were met with great thanks from people who are trying to combat lawlessness and corruption at the top level of government.

I just have to say, of course, Ben Cardin has been the premier leader in this worldwide effort. It was gratifying to know and to learn firsthand on the ground there in Sofia, Bulgaria, that an initiative that began right here in this U.S. Senate years ago, and continues to this day, is having a beneficial effect on the people all across Europe and particularly in some of the countries that we visited.

I yield back to the Senator from Maryland

Would the gentleman yield on that point?

If I might add, people in Narva, Estonia, and people in the city across the river have access to each other across a bridge there. And it is clear to the people on the Russian side that their cousins and friends in Narva, Estonia, live a better life and have a better standard of living in this free country, this NATO ally called Estonia, than the Russian cousins and friends have on the other side.

I just thought I would add that to the discourse before Senator Cardin moves on to discussing Norway and Bulgaria.

Thank you.

Madam President, one other thing that our colleagues might not understand about the OSCE is their role in election observation.

As we were leaving Sofia on the morning of July 11, we crossed paths with some other representatives from the OSCE from European countries who were there to observe the parliamentary elections being held in Bulgaria that very day. Also, on the same day, Moldova, another member of the OSCE, was having parliamentary elections.

We have every hope that the results of these elections will be a further resolve in those two nation members to counter the corruption at the highest level, and we want to congratulate both of those member states of the OSCE for free and fair elections in Europe.

With that, I thank my colleague.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hyde- Smith and I be allowed to use a prop or two during our next presentation.

Mr. President, thank you very much.

My first prop is a front-page story from the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal on Thursday, July 1, 2021. It says:

Hail State! Bulldogs are national champions. Mississippi

State celebrates after winning the College World Series 9-0

against Vanderbilt after the deciding Game 3 on Wednesday in

Omaha. See full coverage: Sports, 1B.

That is my other prop, and that headline says:

Best in Show. Decisive win delivers first national title

for the Mississippi State Bulldogs.

Senator Hyde-Smith and I could not be more delighted to rise this afternoon and recognize Mississippi State University and their baseball team on their first national championship in school history in any sport.

The Bulldogs had been to the College World Series 11 times in the past, and that in itself is a remarkable achievement. They even got to the championship series once in 2013. But this year was the year it all finally came together under Head Coach Chris Lemonis.

They say good pitching wins baseball games, and in this case, it certainly helped Mississippi State win the College World Series.

The hype had been building around MSU by the time they arrived in Omaha in mid-June. After beating Texas and then Virginia and then again beating Texas on a walk-off hit in the bottom of the ninth, the Dawgs advanced to the championship round to face Vanderbilt.

The Bulldogs dropped the season opener, but the next day, on the strength of pitching from Houston Harding and Preston Johnson, who combined to throw a four-hitter, State bounced back with a 13-to-2 victory. They carried that momentum into game 3, where Will Bednar and Landon Sims took the mound and held Vandy to one single hit. The Bulldogs won in a 9-to-0 shutout to bring the national title home for the first time ever to Starkville, MS.

I want to offer my congratulations to Mississippi State Head Coach Chris Lemonis, who was named Coach of the Year by Collegiate Baseball Newspaper.

Congratulations are also in order for Will Bednar, who won Most Outstanding Player at the College World Series and outfielder Tanner Allen, the SEC Player of the Year. He was also named the American Baseball Coaches Association National Player of the Year.

In addition, six Bulldogs were named to this year's College World Series All-Tournament Team: Logan Tanner, Luke Hancock, Lane Forsythe, Tanner Allen, Rowdey Jordan, and Will Bednar.

I want to commend the Mississippi State Bulldogs team for their tireless work throughout this season and for their outstanding achievement. They have made Mississippi State and the entire Magnolia State of Mississippi proud.

In the words of the late Jack Cristil, the voice of the Bulldogs for many, many years, you can wrap this one up in the maroon and white.

I yield to my colleague from Mississippi.

Madam President, what the senior Senator from Iowa just said is exactly right, and unfortunately, the Biden inflation tax increase is real, and it is already here.

We warned about it earlier this year when our friends on the Democratic side decided to spend almost $2 trillion that was unnecessary, and here it is. Just the other day, consumer prices increased by 5.4 percent. This represents the largest year over year price surge since 2008. It is a tax increase on every American consumer.

And then today, even worse news, the producer price increased 7.3 percent. We are in an inflation problem. It is caused by this unnecessary spending spree that we have been on this year. We have known about it--now, we see the statistics--because we felt it at home.

And the senior Senator from Iowa mentioned what he was hearing during the break. Mississippians are paying more for a tank of gas, for a gallon of milk. They are paying more for a new home, for a used car. Used car prices have shot up by 10 percent since May and by 45 percent since June of last year--used cars, up by 45 percent. That is real inflation, and it affects real working Americans.

The hard reality is that our economy is now saturated with a tsunami of spending unleashed by the Democratic majority back in March, when party leaders abandoned what has been a balanced and bipartisan approach in the year 2020 to COVID relief. I would remind my colleagues that in February, the Congressional Budget Office had predicted our economy was already going to return to its prepandemic size by midyear without the spending of a new $2 trillion.

As the senior Senator from Iowa mentioned, Larry Summers, a longtime Democratic adviser, an adviser to President Obama, warned that more stimulus could overheat the economy and cause inflation. And more spending came and the economy got overheated, and we are faced with real statistics about inflation that cannot be denied.

Our Democratic friends brushed off that warning and instead pumped trillions more of borrowed money into our economy. Our Nation's money supply has increased by an unheard of 31 percent since the pandemic. Now, some of it, we had to do in the year 2020, when the economy had fallen off a cliff, but we are halfway through 2021, the Fed is still printing cash, and the majority party in this body seems intent on spending trillions more.

As a result, inflation is now eating away at family earnings, at bank accounts, at 401(k) savings accounts, most of which are shrinking as a share of the economy. Loss of purchasing power is making it harder for Americans to buy a home, start a family, or send their children to college. All of this should serve as a caution to all of us, to our friends on the other side of the aisle. This week's Consumer Price Index and today's Producer Price Index information are an early alarm bell signaling that this Congress and the Biden administration are courting runaway inflation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, if I might, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Marshall, Scott of Florida, and Murray be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. President, I, too, rise in opposition to S. 1 and urge a no vote.

The bill that the Senate will be asked to consider today is a truly radical piece of legislation. It turns out, because of that, it is an unpopular piece of legislation, the kind of bill the Senate was created to help stop from becoming law. S. 1 seeks to transform the way we do elections in this country and to do so on a narrow, partisan basis.

Here is what Americans need to understand about this legislation.

First, it would strip away the power of the States to run elections and hand it to the Federal Government, showing a complete lack of trust in local and State leadership.

It would also spend millions of taxpayer dollars to help politicians run ads for their campaigns. Taxpayers would suddenly have to finance partisan messages they may strongly disagree with, raising serious First Amendment questions.

S. 1 would nullify sensible voter ID laws across the country, including voter identification laws in predominantly Democrat States, like Connecticut and Delaware.

And the legislation would also give the Federal Government the right to draw congressional district lines, even though States have done this since the beginning of our republic.

At its root, this bill is based on a myth. And I consider my words here. It is based on a lie, and that lie is that voting rights are somehow under attack in States like Georgia and Texas. This is utterly absurd, and I think the voters in those States understand that. The election reforms recently passed in Georgia, for example, have actually expanded access to the ballot box, making it easier to vote, but also making it harder to cheat.

The new Georgia law does this, among other things. It expands the window for early voting. The new Georgia law allows no-excuse mail-in voting to continue. It adds 100 new ballot dropboxes. It allows voters to get a government-issued ID for free, and it increases transparency in elections, for example, making sure the ballot counting does not stop in the middle of the night, as we have seen in past elections.

These reforms are entirely reasonable and widely popular across Americans and were based on broad input from the local stakeholders.

My colleagues who are pushing S. 1 say they are trying to save democracy, but, in fact, the bill would actually harm democracy. S. 1 would undermine the security of the ballot box, causing more and more Americans to question the outcome of our elections. We should be working to strengthen trust in democracy, not weaken it.

The only thing bipartisan about this bill is the opposition to it. In my home State of Mississippi, every Member of the House of Representatives--Democrat and Republican--voted against this legislation, including Democrat Representative Bennie Thompson, a chairman of a committee in the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Democratic National Convention of 2020, who said he voted against it because it was opposed by his constituents.

The ACLU has come out against S. 1, saying that some provisions ``unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations''--hardly a rightwing conspiracy group, the ACLU.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with 300 other organizations, have said this legislation is ``fundamentally incompatible with the American tradition and the principles enshrined in our Constitution.''

And when you ask the public about the specific proposals in this bill, many Americans--conservative and liberal, Democrat, Republican, and Independent--are outright opposed.

According to a recent poll, 81 percent of people say they are concerned with allowing voters to vote without any form of photo ID. Eighty-three percent say they are concerned with ballot harvesting practices, this practice of having party operatives go door to door and pick up large numbers of ballots to turn them in. Sixty-eight percent of Democrats are opposed to so-called ballot harvesting. And 50 percent of people say they oppose taxpayer dollars being used to pay for political campaigns. This, again, cuts across party lines.

So it is clear that S. 1 is not popular. It is squarely at odds with the views of the majority of the American people.

Every Senator who votes yes will need to prepare to explain to voters why they wanted to overturn State voter ID protections, allow ballot harvesting, force taxpayers to pay for political campaigns, and enact a partisan Federal Election Commission. That is why S. 1 should be rejected this afternoon, and that is why it will be rejected.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise today in strong support of our U.S. Coast Guard.

For more than 230 years, the U.S. Coast Guard has watched over our shores, protected against foreign threats, lent a helping hand to those in need of rescue, and enforced the rule of law.

The Coast Guard lives by its motto, ``Always Ready,'' and has earned the trust and admiration of the American people. America could not do without this uniquely capable branch of our military.

The Coast Guard is so effective and so versatile that it is tasked with 11 statutory missions spanning the entire globe.

One of the best known Coast Guard missions is search and rescue. The Coast Guard carries out 45 search and rescue missions on an average day, saving the lives and property of Americans in dire need.

The Coast Guard also protects our ports and inland waterways, facilitating billions of dollars in trade and maintaining the navigation aids that make sea commerce possible. In today's global economy, 80 percent of international trade travels by sea. The Coast Guard plays a crucial role in screening commercial vessels, patrolling maritime infrastructure, and servicing aids to navigation, such as beacons and buoys. Each of these functions contributes to our Nation's prosperity and security.

The Coast Guard is also increasingly involved in homeland security. It is largely the Coast Guard's job to deter potential threats before they arrive in U.S. ports. Coast Guard men and women can be found in every major port in America, conducting security boardings and escorting passenger and cargo vessels into our waterways. The Coast Guard also helps to enforce U.S. migration laws and saves the lives of those who foolishly risk everything to travel on unseaworthy vessels.

Beyond this, the Coast Guard plays a crucial role in blocking narcotics and illegal weapons from entering our country. It is not uncommon for Americans to open their news feeds and read a report about the latest multimillion-dollar drug bust carried out at sea by the Coast Guard. In one recent example, three Coast Guard cutters joined efforts to intercept more than 11,000 pounds of cocaine valued at $220 million. That was a remarkable feat, but not unusual for the U.S. Coast Guard.

As the polar regions attract more interest from Congress, it should be known that the Coast Guard is America's surface presence in both the Arctic and the Antarctic waters. Coast Guard icebreakers carry out a wide range of operations, allowing us to have a sustained presence in Antarctica and conduct research in some of the most remote corners of the Earth.

If all of these roles were not enough, the Coast Guard is taking on greater responsibilities in national security. Partnering side-by-side with the Navy, today's Coast Guard conducts freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea, provides maritime security in the Middle East, and deters illegal fishing in international waters.

This long list of responsibilities should make two things very clear: First, the Coast Guard is indeed capable and adept; and, secondly, it is being stretched increasingly thin. Today, the Coast Guard is being asked to carry out almost every maritime task imaginable, but Coast Guard funding has not kept up with these increased demands. The fifth branch of our military needs the certainty, predictable funding, and authorities necessary to accomplish all of its missions.

Congress has the ability to meet these needs, and I am asking my colleagues to do so by supporting a new bill, the Unwavering Support for Our Coast Guard Act. This legislation would essentially do five things.

No. 1, it would protect pay and allowances for Coast Guard members during the government shutdown. During the latest government shutdown, the Coast Guard members went without pay yet continued to serve admirably. This should not be allowed to happen again. We need to safeguard Coast Guard pay and allowances from failures here in Washington.

No. 2, the legislation would provide full funding to eliminate the shore-side facility maintenance backlog while building resilience into these facilities.

No. 3, the bill would enhance the diversity of the Coast Guard.

No. 4, it would support needed renovations at the Coast Guard Yard in Maryland.

And, No. 5, the bill would require the Coast Guard to tell us the assets and facilities it needs to complete all of its missions.

For too long, the Coast Guard has been asked to do more with less. Congress needs to understand the true cost of modernizing and recapitalizing our Coast Guard fleet to meet its mission requirements in the increasingly complex maritime domain.

I am proud of my State's role in supporting the Coast Guard's fleet recapitalization efforts. Mississippi is building two of the vessels that will be the vanguard of our Coast Guard for years to come: the National Security Cutter and the cutting-edge Polar Security Cutter.

The National Security Cutters have already proven themselves to be the most capable and versatile ships the Coast Guard has ever used. They can deploy all around the world and integrate seamlessly with our NATO allies, and use next-generation technologies, like unmanned drones, to extend their reach. These cutters are especially effective at countering drug smuggling, illegal fishing, and illegal movement of migrants.

America will also benefit significantly from the new Polar Security Cutters, which will be the first heavy icebreakers built in America since the 1970s. Our current fleet of icebreakers is aging and shrinking. We have fallen

far behind Russia in our icebreaker fleet, and the Arctic is quickly becoming a critical national security domain. A fleet of new Polar Security Cutters will allow us to maintain a heavy presence in polar regions and keep our adversaries at bay.

America needs a capable and growing Coast Guard, and the Coast Guard needs the support of this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to provide the Coast Guard with the resources it needs to continue its exemplary service to our Nation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lt. Samuel Krakower, a U.S. Coast Guard fellow with my staff, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Madam President, on Tuesday, June 8, 2021, the U.S. Senate passed the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act of 2021. This comprehensive legislation includes the Endless Frontier Act as Division B. The Endless Frontier Act will establish a new Directorate of Technology and Innovation at the National Science Foundation, NSF, focused on research and development in 10 key technology focus areas, which include ``biotechnology, medical technology, genomics, and synthetic biology.''

Although the NSF funds minimal research involving human embryos, it is absolutely critical for the proposed new Directorate of Technology and Innovation and the NSF as an institution to protect human life and to prohibit research that would create or destroy human embryos. First enacted in 1996, the Dickey-Wicker amendment incorporated into annual appropriations bills ensures that such protections apply to research funded by the National Institutes of Health, NIH.

The NSF reports that it applies all NIH guidelines, including the Dickey-Wicker amendment, to its research. The Chief of Government Affairs at NSF, Mr. Robert Moller, confirmed this in an email to my staff dated May 16, 2021:

NSF supports very little human embryonic stem cell

research. NSF incorporates the NIH Guidelines for Human Stem

Cell Research through our award Terms and Conditions, which

govern, among other things, the allowable uses for NSF funds.

Those NIH guidelines clearly address the Dickey Wicker

amendment in Section V. As NSF incorporates this guidance, it

also incorporates the Dickey-Wicker amendment and its

restrictions.

It is clear from NSF's response and a review of the research terms and conditions that are binding on awardees that NIH guidelines, including Dickey-Wickery protections, apply to NSF-funded research. Since nothing in the Endless Frontier Act or the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act modifies these legal protections, it is therefore the clear intent of the Senate that the protections for human life afforded by the Dickey-Wicker amendment continue to apply to the NSF.

Mr. President, I certainly rise in support of this legislation and urge a ``yes'' vote. This is an opportunity for the United States to strike a blow on behalf of answering the unfair competition that we are seeing from Communist China, and it is an opportunity to have a game changer in terms of geographic diversity in our research effort.

This morning, the Armed Services Committee heard extensive testimony about the need to compete with China at the military level. This is an opportunity to compete with China at the research level. This bill will strengthen our country's innovation in key technology fields of the future--in areas such as artificial intelligence, robotics, quantum computing, and communications.

And this bill also is a game changer in terms of giving universities all over the United States an opportunity to participate in game- changing research, which will help us compete. Universities, largely in smaller States such as mine, have been left behind in the past. They will finally, under this legislation, have an opportunity to participate in research at a meaningful level--so two good reasons to vote yes.

The distinguished chair of the committee has been gracious in thanking all of our staffs on the majority and the minority side. I appreciate her doing that, as well as Senator Cantwell's admirable job of managing this bill through the committee.

I congratulate the two authors of this bill, Senator Schumer and Senator

Young, who sponsored this legislation. This bill is headed toward passage with a fine bipartisan vote, and I am pleased to support passage.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, today, the Senate passed the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act--USICA--legislation which would establish a new Technology and Innovation Directorate at the National Science Foundation. Section 2005 of USICA would define 10 initial key technology focus areas to direct research at the new Directorate and the Department of Energy. One of these areas is advanced energy technology. I want to put in the record that Congress has previously enacted legislation defining advanced energy technology in 42 USC 18632, and that definition should apply here.

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

Mr. President, later on this evening, it is my hope that we will be moving forward on the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, which many of us are still calling the Endless Frontier Act. I will be voting to support final passage. This landmark bill has prompted considerable debate.

This legislation is about maintaining America's edge in research and technology. That is a top priority for my party, and it is a top priority for the Democratic Party in this Chamber. And it ought to prompt a spirited discussion. And it has prompted such a discussion. How many bills has this been said about?

The bill is not perfect. There are elements that I could do without, and there are parts that I wish were included. But on the whole, this is a necessary step to keep our Nation competitive. This bill puts forth a bold vision for scientific research across multiple Federal Agencies and authorizes a historic down payment on the priorities that can keep America at the forefront of innovation. This bill is a huge boost for American R&D. It authorizes substantial R&D investments through the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, NASA, and, of course, the National Science Foundation, which is the gold standard for basic research.

In addition to a new NSF Directorate, it will speed up the translation of R&D into practical applications and help tech innovators through the creation of technology hubs around the country and expanded manufacturing programs.

Our adversaries are well aware that America leads the world in innovation. Instead of trying to outinnovate the United States, some of our adversaries are choosing to steal what we create. The Chinese Communist Party is, bar none, the world's worst offender when it comes to research and intellectual property theft, making today's legislation especially urgent.

This legislation takes steps to improve research security at the National Science Foundation. Although the introduced bill did not contain adequate provisions in this area, I worked with Senator Cantwell, the chair of the Commerce Committee, to craft a package of reforms to safeguard taxpayer-funded research and intellectual property.

Our approach will ensure that the research community understands and complies with security policy and that grant applicants go through appropriate risk assessments. The research security title establishes a new research security office at the NSF to centralize the process of developing these security requirements and assessing potential risks. The office is empowered to pull in the intelligence and law enforcement Agencies to assist in targeted risk assessments.

We also establish a clearing-house for the research community to share information about security threats. Importantly, the research security title also includes a ban on Federal employees participating in foreign talent programs and a strict provision on tax-funded awards going to researchers who participate in talent programs run by our greatest adversaries. These initiatives and many others constitute a new and bold research security program at the National Science Foundation.

This bill also represents a huge step forward for geographical diversity in R&D. Currently, half of all Federal R&D funds go to just six States and the District of Columbia.

Closing that divide has been a priority of mine since my first days in the House of Representatives. Today's legislation will boost R&D at emerging institutions so that no region goes unutilized in our efforts to compete with China.

I regret that this bill was put through with a rushed process. Our initial markup in committee was scheduled just 1 day after the bill was dropped. That markup got postponed. Two weeks later, we had a day-long markup where we dealt with more than 250 committee amendments. After incorporating over 100 of those amendments, the bill passed by a vote of 24 to 4.

Let me repeat that. The bill passed the Commerce Committee by a vote of 24 yeses and only 24 noes.

A few days later, the bill reached the Senate floor, where more than 500 amendments have been filed. Clearly, there is a desire to legislate in this body and on this legislation given sufficient time and opportunity.

This bill should put to rest--to rest--any discussion of changing the filibuster. The Senate is perfectly capable of functioning if the majority allows it to function. And it has done so this week and in the days last week when we were considering this legislation.

I would add that it would be wrong and unnecessary for this bill to be funded through reconciliation. Passing this consensus legislation through a partisan process would send exactly the wrong message to our adversaries. And we are getting it done under regular order. It may not be pretty. It may not be the most efficient thing ever devised by the mind of man, but we are getting this done under current rules. Everyone has been heard, and it will be passed under regular order, I think with a very nice vote.

I wish to congratulate the two authors of this legislation, Senator Schumer and Senator Todd Young, for their success in this bill. I especially appreciate Senator Young's commitment to improving our competitiveness and his leadership in moving this bill forward.

I also want to thank the chair of the Commerce Committee, Maria Cantwell, for helping shepherd this bill through the oftentimes challenging floor, for her patience and her skill in helping to lead us through the amendment process.

And, then, how could we end debate or approach the end of consideration of this legislation without thanking our staffs for the countless hours on both sides of the aisle, for the people who worked so hard on this bill and the amendments? The excellent, knowledgeable way in which they have approached this legislation would be amazing to the American public if they could look into the process and see how hard these public servants work.

I want to particularly thank the outstanding contributions of my staff director, John Keast. But also he would want me to make a particular point of congratulating policy director James Mazol and my deputy policy director Cheri Pascoe--neither of whom has slept very much recently. They have done exceptional work.

I know Senator Cantwell feels the same about the great public servants on her staff, on her side of the aisle. They have done this at great personal sacrifice from their families and from themselves. And I know we are all well-served by our staffs, and I am most thankful for mine.

But I am also thankful for the legislative process, for the fact that on this issue, increasing secure R&D to combat our adversaries, particularly those in Communist China--I want to thank the Members of this Senate on both sides of the issue and on both sides of the aisle for the great way in which this Senate has conducted regular order.

I will be voting yes. I think a sizable majority of the Senate will be voting yes. And we will be doing good by our constituents and by future generations in doing so. Thank you.

And I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is my pleasure to ask unanimous consent that Flannery Egner, an intern with the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation minority staff, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 117th Congress.

Madam President, I would like to be recognized for a moment before we proceed.

This is an important step in the consideration of the Endless Frontier Act. We have just locked in six votes for this afternoon--two important side by sides, Wyden and Crapo on Finance Committee matters; a Paul amendment on the National Institutes of Health funds being used in China; an Ernst amendment on the Wuhan lab; a Daines amendment on intellectual property in China; and the Lee amendment on stem cell research.

This is a great step forward; that the Senate is proceeding this afternoon to regular order, and regular order allowing Senators to come forward and offer amendments that might improve the bill is helpful. It is hoped that we can do that again tomorrow and Thursday and move toward an opportunity to pass this bill.

I would point out to my colleagues--and I know the distinguished chair of the Finance Committee will agree with this. We have locked in six 15-minute votes. In fairness, really, the five subsequent votes should be 10-minute votes. We can fool around and wander in here for hours and be here until 8 or we can begin at 4:45 and resume the practice that we had for years before we quit doing regular order in this body.

If Members will hold each other accountable and if the Chair is willing to say after a certain amount of time, if a straggler is missing, that that Senator simply has missed votes, then we can do this in an orderly fashion. I have an appointment at 5:30 that I have had to cancel. Perhaps others will have to do that too.

But we are making progress on a very substantive bill about the future of this country and moving toward competing in a better way with China. And I would suggest that maybe appointments in the early afternoon might be canceled, and we can get back to quick votes and be considerate of others, realizing that some of us may miss votes if we are late. I make that suggestion, and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the hard work in locking in these six votes.

I yield back.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I want to commend the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma and the distinguished senior Senator from Alabama for this amendment. And it seems to me that this is a national security amendment that should get support on both sides of the aisle because the Senator from Oklahoma is absolutely correct. It has had bipartisan support in the past. And particularly at this moment, when we are talking about a bill to compete with China, we need to acknowledge that we will compete with China both in the R&D sphere, as this bill discusses, but also in terms of military might.

And it disturbs me, and I know it is of concern to my friends on the other side of the aisle, that the Biden administration just this week announced that they would cut four ships from the most recent shipbuilding plan, which was established by our military experts, by the admirals and generals who told us what we need. To cut four ships from the shipbuilding plan, I think, would send exactly the opposite signal to China that we are trying to send through this bill. And I know I have friends on the other side of the aisle, as well as on this side of the aisle, who have signed the SHIPYARD Act, which makes the statement, on a bipartisan basis, that we need to be preparing our Navy for competition in the Pacific that will come from China, and I think it is a way to preserve peace in the Asia-Pacific region by having parity there.

So for that particular reason, on this particular week, this is a most timely and appropriate amendment, and I do hope we can get bipartisan support.

I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 1523