Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask that the vote not occur until after comments by Leader McConnell.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

I have to begin by thanking my friend and colleague, the Senator from Pennsylvania, for his efforts to ensure that pregnant women have access to accommodations--reasonable accommodations at work. They need to have healthy pregnancies.

As the husband of a wife who had two children while she was working and a grandfather of two grandchildren with a daughter who is a nurse, I absolutely want to make sure that those reasonable accommodations are accounted for.

However, in its current form, this legislation before us would give Federal bureaucrats at the EEOC authority to mandate that employers nationwide provide accommodations such as leave to obtain abortions on demand under the guise of a pregnancy-related condition. Worse still, the legislation would subject pro-life organizations, including churches and religious organizations, to potentially crippling lawsuits if they refuse to facilitate abortions in direct violation of their religious beliefs and their moral convictions.

Unlike title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act, this legislation contains no exemptions for religious organizations.

I and a number of other people do not believe that abortion is healthcare. I believe it is a brutal procedure that destroys an innocent child.

The Federal Government should not be promoting abortion, let alone mandating that pro-life employers and employers in States that protect life facilitate abortion-on-demand.

I hope that we can work together on this legislation and amend it to address those concerns so that all the reasonable accommodations they worked so hard to achieve can be passed and can gain my support and the support of other colleagues. But until such time, sir, I have to object; and on behalf of Senator Lankford, Senator Daines, and myself, I do object.

Madam President, I, along with my colleagues who have spoken before me, am proud to be able to work on a very sensitive issue in a very collaborative and bipartisan fashion.

We did it in a way that was always respectful of the fact that many Americans come from different walks of life and many diverse beliefs and viewpoints.

We know that nearly a million Americans are already committed to same-sex marriages who simply want long-term certainty--not only the million who are already committed to same-sex marriages but the millions of people who attended the ceremonies, their friends, and their family.

As we went through this bill, we listened to the very sincere concerns of Americans with strongly held religious beliefs who simply wanted to make sure that Congress protects their First Amendment rights, especially the freedom of religion.

By casting politics aside and working hard behind the scenes over the past several months, we managed to strike a balance with this legislation. There will be permanent certainty for same-sex couples, and they can rest easy knowing their families are secure. And there will be robust protections for churches, religious organizations, protections that are more robust and expansive than currently exist in Federal law.

I want to talk a little bit about the compromise we reached and what it will mean for our constituents who voiced their concerns over the past few months. This bill protects religious liberty and conscience protections available under the Constitution and Federal law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, commonly referred to as RFRA. This bill cannot be used to diminish or repeal any such protection.

The bill also makes clear that no religious organization will be required to provide any services for the celebration of a same-sex marriage. Simply put, that means that no church or religious organization will be required to perform, recognize, or celebrate same- sex marriages.

We also took steps to protect the tax-exempt status of religious nonprofit organizations. We didn't leave anything ambiguous. We included language that guarantees the bill cannot be used to deny or alter any benefit, right, or status of any otherwise eligible person or entity. This includes tax-exempt status, tax treatment, grants, educational funding, loans, scholarships, licenses, and certifications. Put together, the Respect for Marriage Act essentially preserves the status quo we have had in our country for the last 7 years, since the Supreme Court ruling.

Same-sex couples will continue to have the right to get married, now without the fear of government intervention, and churches and religious organizations will continue to operate and worship free from government interference.

This is a good compromise. It is one that is based on mutual respect for our fellow Americans, protecting the rights of Americans who may have different lifestyles or different viewpoints. I am proud of the work we did with this bill. I am looking forward to voting yes on it. And I am grateful for the leadership of so many people who were involved. Of course, Senator Collins, Senator Portman, Senator Baldwin, and Senator Sinema. But I also want to thank

the Church of Latter-day Saints, the Seventh-day Adventists, the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities that represents 150 different religious institutions of higher learning here in the United States alone, and they have operations abroad, and the National Association of Evangelicals, the Center for Public Justice and its Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance.

I believe this is a good bill, and bipartisan bills in any environment are difficult. And I think it is why it was so important we came together, had the courage to work together, recognized the viewpoints at either end of the spectrum, and came up with a carefully crafted compromise that I believe is good for all Americans.

And I look forward to everybody voting in favor of it. We will have some opposition, but at the end of the day, I think we will prevail. And that is a message to so many people out there who want this done.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to remember a friend and a great North Carolinian, Ada Markita Fisher, who unexpectedly died on October 7, 2022. Ada was 74 years old and only a few weeks away from her 75th birthday.

As a young African-American woman, she was a trailblazer. After completing a degree in biology at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro--UNCG--she went on to become the first Black female to earn a medical degree at the University of Wisconsin's School of Medicine and Public Health. She was also the first Black UNCG alumna to complete a medical degree. Additionally, she completed her masters in public health at Johns Hopkins University's School of Hygiene and Public Health in 1981.

After completing her medical degree, Ada chose to return to North Carolina to provide medical care to an underserved community and lead programs for victims of substance abuse. She spent some of her career in the private sector, but most of her life was dedicated to helping people who were struggling and ultimately making a positive difference in her community.

I met Ada 15 years ago when I began my political service in the North Carolina General Assembly. From the first time I met her, I was inspired by her courage, focus, and plain talk. She was a lifelong Republican. She was dedicated to the party of Abraham Lincoln, and she did not hesitate to challenge anyone from across the political spectrum who threatened the principles of personal liberty, individual responsibility, and social justice.

Although I met Ada after she retired, she never seemed to slow down. She traveled across the State advocating for common sense ``prescriptions'' to the challenges we faced. She became the first African-American to be elected Republican National Committee--RNC-- committeewoman for North Carolina. Ada was known for her letters. Some were focused on policies she was promoting, and others were focused on challenging policies she did not think were helpful. Whether or not you agreed with her opinion, you had to respect the thoughtfulness and the work she put into them.

When Ada wasn't working on public policy, she was focused on her family. Ada never married, but she adopted two sons who blessed her with two grandchildren. She also had three siblings and a host of nieces, nephews, and cousins. She adored her family, and they adored her.

I attended Ada's funeral last month, and I was honored to speak at her memorial service. While I was considering what I should say, it occurred to me that I had never written a letter to Ada, so I decided to write a letter to her and deliver it at the memorial. I wished that I had sent it long before her passing, but I hope she enjoys it nonetheless as she reads it in heaven.

Dear Ada, I'm sorry I am just now sending you this letter, but I hope it finds you well in the Kingdom of Heaven. I regret that I haven't had the opportunity to see you recently, but I am glad that my last memory of you was giving you a hug when we were together. Had I known it was to be the last time I would see you, I would have hugged you a little longer.

After I received the sad news of your passing, I reflected on the times we spent together, and it gave me some comfort as I grieved your loss. I knew you as a staunch advocate for people who are struggling, for diversity, for personal responsibility, and for individual freedom. I remember so many times when you challenged a crowd to think differently. You didn't look for applause lines, you looked for opportunities to make a point and to make a difference. You didn't hesitate to get people out of their comfort zone by saying what needed to be said, and you gained many followers and admirers along the way.

I am embarrassed to admit that I only knew a small part of your work since the time we met 15 years ago, and I did not fully comprehend your life's work with helping others. I've studied you more since your passing Ada, and you are truly even more remarkable than I imagined.

As a young African American woman, you excelled in academics--a medical degree and a master's degree in public health. You could have taken a life-long path to personal enrichment, but you chose to return home to North Carolina to set up a rural health clinic and programs to help people struggling with substance abuse. You helped veterans.

You studied education and became a certified teacher in math and science. You served in what I believe is the most difficult political position on earth--a local school board. Man, I wish they were televised in those days. I'm sure it would have been a sight to see! You understood that education is the surest path to freedom, and you worked hard to ensure that every child (including your two sons) had an opportunity to pursue that path.

The truth is, Ada, you have done so much for so many, and you've set a high bar for the rest of us. I am saddened that you left this earthy world far too soon because I know you had so many more things you would do to make it a better place. But thank you for everything you did Ada, and thank you for the blessing of your friendship.

Now that you've had a few weeks in the Kingdom of Heaven, I hope you've found time to rest. You deserve it, Ada. Know that we are praying for you and that we love you, and we will continue to be inspired by your life's work.

With Love and Admiration, Thom T.

Mr. President, I announce that my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Richard Burr, will be necessarily absent this week. He is at home in North Carolina recovering from hip replacement surgery. The procedure was successful, and he is doing well. He will be closely monitoring votes and looks forward to rejoining us here in the Senate next week.

Madam President, I want to thank my friend and colleague Senator Portman for his work and his focus on Ukraine, and I want to thank my friend and colleague Senator Shaheen. It has been a real pleasure once we started up the Senate NATO Observer Group after it had been dormant for some time. Who knew that it could have been more timely several years ago when we began that process?

I was thinking--I have used this analogy before. I grew up in a family of six kids. We, even to this day, have our differences and disagreements. I have one sister I am pretty sure wouldn't vote for me if she lived in North Carolina. We are not ideologically aligned. But I know she loves me, and I know, when our family gets threatened, there is no difference between us.

That is what Vladimir Putin saw on February 24. He saw the family of nations in NATO come together like he couldn't possibly have imagined, and he saw two nations, Finland and Sweden, after decades of being nonaligned, saying: Enough is enough. Now it is time to pick between good and evil. And evil is Vladimir Putin, and good is Western democracies--Western democracies like Finland and Sweden which respect the rule of law, which respect the rights of their citizens, which respect the free press, which invest in their military, and which will be a net exporter of security the day they enter NATO.

As a matter of fact, they are already a very valuable asset to NATO. I have spoken with many of my colleagues in the Department of Defense, many people in uniform. They laud the relationship that they have with the military in Finland and Sweden. They work together on exercises. They know that Finland has a formidable ground force. They know that Sweden has a formidable navy that is going to give us added presence in the Baltics and added presence in the Arctic.

The worst possible scenario that Putin never anticipated was a completely unified NATO and the addition of 830 miles--1,340 kilometers--of NATO border right up against Russia. That is what he has gotten for his illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the blood of thousands are on Vladimir Putin's hands.

Now I want to talk a little bit about Finland and Sweden, but I also have to start with that letter. I remember vividly, Senator Shaheen, when we were meeting with Swedish diplomats and the Defense Minister, and we were saying: What can we do to send a signal to the people of Finland and Sweden that the United States is absolutely supportive of their accession to NATO?

And they said: Well, communications would be good.

And we said: Well, we will do a letter.

In 24 hours, we got 80 signatures. Now, the question would be, Why not the other 20? Quite honestly, we didn't take the time. Everybody that we went to signed on to the letter, but we thought it was important to get that communication out quickly.

Today, we are going to see more than 95 Senators--I think even more than that--vote for ratification because they understand that Finland and Sweden are investing in their military. They understand that Finland is already at 2 percent and continuing to invest. They know that Finland has already put on order 64 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

Why is that extraordinary? Finland is about half the population of my

State, North Carolina, about 5\1/2\ million people. They have on order 64 Joint Strike Fighters. We have fewer than 200 in full operation here in the United States. If we, on a per capita basis, were to have as many Joint Strike Fighters as Finland intends to have, we would need more than 4,000.

Now, let's talk about Sweden. Their industrial base is extraordinary. They have advanced fighter technology. They have advanced submarine technology. They have an industrial base that can be mobilized. They have an industrial base that is already developing platforms that are NATO interoperable.

When they come in, they are not going to have to do some sort of NATO 101. They are going to get to work. They are going to continue the work they are already doing.

And, in Sweden's case, there are some members here concerned about burden sharing and hitting the 2 percent mark. When we were in Stockholm, we talked about this. When we met with the diplomatic and Defense Ministers, we talked about this. They are on their way. They are committed. Their government officials are committed to getting to 2 percent funding, and thank goodness.

Maybe that sends a message to some of our other NATO countries that they need to get up there. If anything, Ukraine has taught us that we have to be ready, and we have to be at that level of burden sharing.

But I am not in the least bit concerned with Finland and Sweden meeting their target. They are going to do it, and they are going to do it on short order. I believe that Sweden will be there by 2027, early 2028.

So now, we have to move forward. Now, I am also being a little bit competitive. I am disappointed that we weren't the first nation, but I am also very optimistic. I am thrilled that so many nations have already recognized how valuable they will be as full-fledged NATO allies. So we are going to be 22nd, but we are doing it in record time. Everybody knows here that I describe this place as a ``Crockpot.'' It takes a long time to cook something in the U.S. Senate.

For us to do this in less than a month is absolutely extraordinary, and I hope that the people of Sweden and the people of Finland recognize that that is because the U.S. Senate has full confidence in them. We welcome them readily, and we look forward to their accession. This step in ratifying the treaty is a great step. So I encourage all of our Members to consider voting for Finland and Sweden.

The last thing I will leave you with is that there are some here who say: Well, we can't really worry about Russia. We have to worry about China.

We have to worry about both, and NATO is worried about both. If you look at the strategic concept that came out of Madrid, you should also recognize that there were four countries from INDOPACOM that were at a NATO summit. They recognize that we have to look at China and recognize the threat. But they also recognize that we have an immediate threat in Europe, and we have to stand together.

With NATO, I am very proud of how the partners came together, and with Sweden and Finland, I am going to be even more proud of our alliance when they are full-fledged members. And we are going to work as hard as we can as members of the Senate NATO Observer Group to make sure that the remaining countries follow suit quickly so that we can welcome both of these great nations into the greatest alliance that has ever existed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes prior to the scheduled votes.

Mr. President, I will be brief. But I do want to talk about a serious subject. You know, 30 years ago, we wouldn't have been talking about email or social media or other things that we now rely on to receive communications, to be informed on political choices, and to potentially even support candidates that we want to support. But the reality is, today, we all have two or three email accounts, probably most of them based on Gmail. We have got access to Twitter, Instagram, Facebook--a number of social media platforms. And I have a concern that maybe it is not a level playing field for political views.

We have always had that argument, but recently NC State issued a report that seems to find that--particularly with Gmail--we have an imbalance between how information is disseminated, how candidates are able to reach out for support. What the study found is a potential political bias against Republicans in favor of Democratic candidates.

Now, I am a technology person, and I think my staff called me a bit of a nerd. I have been in technology for almost 40 years. I am not willing to jump to the conclusion that Google has necessarily created a strategy for benefitting Democrats over Republicans, but a study seems to suggest that there are legitimate questions that need to be answered.

I, for one, don't think any platform should favor either policy. I think more speech, more access is better; more informed voters, more people participating in elections. But the study seems to suggest that there is a bias in the way that we receive our information through Gmail.

I joined a letter with Senator Daines to say: Take a look at that report, take a look at your operations, and give us your response to the assertions in the report.

I know that this is very important for the future of elections, for the future of participation in elections. And, again, I don't want a platform that biases itself toward conservatives any more than I want one that biases itself towards liberals. But I did have an opportunity to talk with technologists at Google, who dismissed the report. But that is not enough. The report has findings. And I think--in this case Google, but there are other platforms we can ask the same question.

Incidentally, Twitter 2 months ago informed me that I was not who I said I was, so they suspended my account. I tried to go through an appeal process and finally just decided I don't need that Twitter account. I am wondering if that was a result of an algorithm or the result of somebody in Twitter who didn't like what I had to say about my mother and my wife and my kids on my Twitter account because I happen to have an official account that, for some reason, it is OK.

We have got to get this straightened up, and Google can help us start by taking a look at the findings in this report and providing us hard answers for it and identifying others who may actually be responsible for the outcomes that we are, at this point, assuming are the responsibility of Google.

I think it is very important for us to go through the report, give us the information we need because we may find out that Google is, in fact, not responsible for what some of my colleagues believe is the vast majority of appeals from conservatives going into their spam filter and never being reached. There may be other reasons. We already know that Russia, China, other state actors influence public opinion in the United States through their views and exploitation of social platforms.

So the reason I come to the floor today is to basically reassert what I did in the letter to Google. Do the homework. Prove to us that there are no operations or conscious decisions made by the management or individuals in the organization to actually bias towards one ideology or the other. I need that information so that we can figure out how we can have more speech and more engagement in the political process.

But I will say this: If there is any social media platform that has an employee or an organization that is biased, those folks should no longer be working for those platforms. And if I find any evidence to that effect, I will be pursuing it aggressively. But I come to the floor to encourage Google to do the homework, know that I will be objective. And I would like to get a response soon.

Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Shaheen and my colleagues on the floor here--Senators Coons, Ernst, Blunt, and the others who joined the bipartisan delegation at the NATO summit. It was an extraordinary opportunity to see firsthand how the democratic world looks at the United States for leadership.

It was an extraordinary opportunity to talk about Russia's aspirations. It was an extraordinary opportunity to talk about what I think may go down as the greatest miscalculation in this century on the part of Vladimir Putin.

Months ago, when he was massing troops at the Ukrainian border, he

called it a special military operation, a training exercise, for a little while. What he was thinking in the back of his head was that now was the time to test NATO's resolve; now was the time to see if the differences that we have was enough to break an alliance.

What he found out was quite the opposite. Shortly after February 24, the NATO countries came together, the EU came together. We implemented sanctions. We provided troops on the ground to assist with the evacuation of Ukrainian refugees.

And now we are in a position of providing support for the very courageous members of the Ukrainian military.

What else did he get for his miscalculation? Two nations that, for decades, have been nonaligned, Sweden and Finland. Eight hundred and thirty miles of Russian border is now about to be the back door or the front yard of NATO. And when Finland and Sweden ultimately get membership in NATO, which I expect to be in weeks or months, then Vladimir Putin needs to understand his reward for invading a sovereign nation is 830 miles of NATO borders right next door.

Now I want to talk a little bit about Finland and Sweden. They are extraordinary countries--advanced democracies, the rule of law, a great defense industrial base in Sweden, home to Saab. They manufacture jet fighters that are NATO interoperable.

Finland is already spending in the 2-percent threshold for NATO and wanting to go further. Finland has 64 joint strike fighters on order. If the United States was going to have as many--they are a nation of about 5\1/2\ million people--if the United States was going to have as many F-35s as Finland on a per capita basis, we would need thousands of them. We have less than 200. They are committed to defense. They are a strong army, a strong ground force. Russia knows that; just look back to 1939.

And then in Sweden, we have a defense industrial base and a Navy that covers the Arctic. It covers the Baltics. They are going to be net distributors of security the day that they get NATO membership.

I had somebody a couple of weeks ago--from time to time, I go to the front office, and I take calls from constituents. I had someone call up and say, Why are you supporting--why are you focused on Ukraine? Why are you focused on Finland and Sweden when we have so many things we need to do back here at home?

I said, We have to do both because the future of our safety and our freedom at home is intrinsically linked to the safety and security of Europe.

This weekend, I was moving some furniture around. I came across a globe I have had for 40 years. It has a picture of the Soviet Empire on it. Vladimir Putin wants to recreate that and expand it. This doesn't end. And I told the caller this: It doesn't end in Ukraine. It is one step of several chess moves that Vladimir Putin would like to play out and, ultimately, dominate the free world. We can't let that happen.

When we were at the NATO summit, I think it was very clear--at least to me--that those whom we met with, the heads of state, feel like now more than ever is the time America has to lead, that America has to understand the threats that exist: a rising China, a threatening Russia, a malign group of leaders in Iran. Now is the time for us to look outward and preserve the free world.

How do we do that? We make NATO stronger. We admit Sweden. We admit Finland. And we continue to work together to recognize emerging threats in the Pacific Rim.

I think at the end of the day, to the American citizen who is wondering why do we worry about NATO, why do we worry about Ukraine? Because it is directly linked to the future of our sovereignty and our safety here at home.

I want to thank the President for his contribution at NATO, as well. We met with him for about an hour last week. We had a press conference a little later in the day, and people wanted to ask us about domestic policies. I said, We are a bipartisan group here to talk about our commitment to NATO and our commitment to having Putin fail in Ukraine. We can have our differences back home, but there is no daylight between the Republicans and the Democrats who were on that codel with respect to the future of our commitment to NATO and a future to our commitment to the free world.

I hope that we will move swiftly to pass the treaty, to be one of the first to recognize that we want and welcome Sweden and Finland into the NATO alliance. And then we need to continue to remind people at home why it is important. Although it is not in our backyard, it is in a part of the world that if we let this stand, if we don't act with unity, then we will live to regret it.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to sadly announce the retirement--or not retirement--my chief of staff's decision to move on to another great opportunity, and I wanted to take a few minutes to talk about Ted Lehman and not only the 5 years he has been my chief of staff but the nearly 20 years he has been working in the Senate.

Before I start, though, he attended the University of Pennsylvania, where he got his undergrad, and then he went to Georgetown to get his law degree. He clerked for Thomas Hogan, who was then the chief judge of the DC District Court.

He came to the Senate about 20 years ago, in 2002. To give you some perspective, I didn't enter the legislature in North Carolina until 2007, so he has years of experience on me. He has knowledge of the Senate that I will never gain.

He started work with Senator Hatch. He worked for a couple of years with Senator Sessions, and then he worked for Senator Grassley on the Judiciary Committee. He was the chief counsel of nominations and senior counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, and that is where I met Ted.

I remember vividly, when my chief of staff at the time, Ray Starling, told me that he was going to be moving back to North Carolina, I told him: Great. Now find your replacement.

It was later that day that he came to me and said: What about Ted Lehman?

I said: I think that is a fantastic idea.

Ted wasn't looking for a job, and I wondered whether or not he would be interested in working for a freshman Senator from the State of North Carolina. But he took that job, and he has done extraordinary work, not only in terms of the day-to-day institutional grind that a chief has to go through but his attention to staff--not only the DC staff but the North Carolina staff. I think he is well-regarded among the staff, and he is going to be sorely missed.

I also need to talk about Ted and his family. To say that it is in the Lehman blood is an understatement. His brother Dirksen served on the HELP Committee with Senator Jeffords. His brother Patrick is the legislative director to Senator Sasse. He knows a lot about this institution, and he knows a lot about its processes. The first, really, opportunity I got to see that in action was when he was responsible for moving Justice Gorsuch through the nominations process.

Ted has a great family--his wife Amy, his son Jackson, his oldest son, his oldest daughter, Emma Claire, Sallye, and a young son now. Now, Ted is not from North Carolina, and we have speculated as to why he named his son what he did. He may say it is related to some sort of family tradition, but I think it is no coincidence that he named his son ``Raleigh'' after our State's capitol.

Ted is an avid hunter, fisher, outdoorsman, baseball dad, soccer dad--all those sorts of things--and he gets the right balance. He understands that family is as important as work, and he figures out how to strike that balance. But there is very seldom a morning where he is not one of the first people in, and there are so many nights where I am the last person he sees before he goes home.

I appreciate his service. I am going to miss him.

Thank you, Ted.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor our brave, hard- working men and women in law enforcement as we celebrate their service during National Police Week.

This week, thousands of law enforcement officers and their families will visit our Nation's Capitol to honor those who serve and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our community safe.

Over the past year, North Carolina has tragically lost three law enforcement officers in the line of duty. This doesn't include the numerous law enforcement officers who have also lost their lives over the last year due to other causes, including some due to COVID-19.

But I would like to take a moment to honor the three officers who lost their lives while protecting those they served.

Last October, we lost Ryan Hayworth of the Knightdale Police Department after his patrol vehicle was hit by a drunk driver.

Officer Hayworth was only 23 years old, and he had already established a distinguished record of service. He was in the U.S. Army and the National Guard.

He answered the call again by becoming a police officer, following in the footsteps of his father, who was a longtime chief of the Zebulon Police Department, and his brother, who is a firefighter.

Last December, only 2 days before Christmas, in my home county of Mecklenburg, we grieved the loss of CMPD Officer Mia Danielle Figueroa- Goodwin.

Officer Figueroa-Goodwin, only 33, tragically was killed when a tractor trailer hit her patrol car as she was working to keep drivers safe following a previous crash.

Officer Figueroa-Goodwin had served CMPD for 6 years. She had a beautiful family, survived by her husband and three young children, including a four-month-old baby.

In January, we lost North Carolina State Trooper John Horton in a tragic accident with another patrol vehicle as the area was faced with icy and dangerous driving conditions. The accident also tragically took the life of another driver.

Trooper Horton had served for 15 years, and he is survived by his wife and 6 children.

The incredible sacrifice of our brave men and women in blue can take many forms. Last month, an act of incredible bravery by North Carolina State Patrol Trooper Cody Thao captivated North Carolinians. When a suspected drunk driver's car was barreling the wrong way down a highway exit ramp, Trooper Thao bravely put himself and his patrol car in the way to stop the driver from hurting or possibly killing others. Instead of speeding the wrong way on the highway, the suspect was stopped by Trooper Thao's split-second decision to angle his car and let the car hit his patrol car.

This act was filmed by Trooper Thao's dashboard camera, and his bravery has been broadcast literally to the world.

Trooper Thao's selfless decision undoubtedly saved lives and serves as a reminder of the danger our law enforcement community faces each and every day to keep us safe.

I am deeply encouraged by the outpouring of support from North Carolina communities for our brave, hard-working law enforcement officers. And I should say that I am happy to see the same across all States in the Nation.

But there are some folks who want to talk about anti-police policies. I don't think people back home in North Carolina or across the United States are buying it. I believe most people back home and across this beautiful country respect and support law enforcement.

The American people understand that law enforcement officers make our communities safer and stronger. They understand that proposals to abolish and defund the police are out of touch with reality. The reality is that rhetorical attacks on law enforcement only serve to encourage physical attacks on law enforcement.

FBI Director Chris Wray raised the alarm just a few weeks ago when he told the American people that ``Violence against law enforcement in this country is one of the biggest phenomenon that I think doesn't get enough attention.'' I agree with Director Wray.

While attacks on our brave men and women in blue may not get enough attention in the national press, our local communities recognize the tremendous sacrifice given by those who protect and serve.

We must stop the tide of violence against law enforcement in this country. That is why I am proud to have introduced the Protect and Serve Act. This commonsense legislation would make it a Federal crime to intentionally assault a law enforcement officer. This bill has also received bipartisan support in the past and, I believe, would make a strong statement to criminals that assaulting law enforcement is inexcusable.

With the Protect and Serve Act, criminals would be on notice that an assault on law enforcement is an assault on all Americans.

Each year, we take this week to celebrate those who serve and protect public safety.

These heroes deserve our gratitude 24/7, 365. I hope my colleagues will help me fight for the men and women in blue. They need us more than ever.

As I often say when I am back in the State of North Carolina, if you get an opportunity to see a law enforcement officer today, thank them for their sacrifice.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, speaking on behalf of Leader McConnell and with all due respect to my friend from Michigan, this is a COVID- related provision which the Biden administration never requested. It is not in the President's budget. It is not even in the supplemental budget. The administration asked for everything under the Sun, but they never asked for this.

This is another example of my colleagues trying to take an emergency pandemic, the exemptions, and turn

them into permanent changes that last forever. Families don't want schools to be permanently stuck in a pandemic posture. Families want schools to move past COVID and get back to normal. Yet this amendment would continue policies that were explicitly designed to help schools close and go virtual. That is exactly what families don't want. Parents and kids want schools open.

Finally, this amendment costs $11 billion, and it is not offset. For the people watching this tonight, that means it is not paid for. It is $11 billion more that we can't afford.

We had a fully-paid-for COVID package ready to go until the House Democrats blew it up. We will not be going around the backs of our own Senate committees of jurisdiction because House Democrats killed a bipartisan COVID package.

So I respectfully object.

Madam President, I always strive to treat each and every nominee--regardless of party affiliation--with dignity and respect. I evaluate their credentials and make a decision on whether to support them based on their qualifications, their temperaments, and whether they will serve the interests of all of the American people.

That is actually why, in my role on the Judiciary Committee, I have voted for almost half of President Biden's nominees. In my judgment, some were qualified and deserved confirmation, and in my judgment, some weren't. Again, I evaluate each nominee on an independent and fair basis. With this in mind, I hope my colleagues will take seriously what I have to say today.

I rise to speak in opposition to, perhaps, one of the most radical nominees the President has put forward to date.

I am talking about the nomination of Gigi Sohn to be an FCC Commissioner.

Ms. Sohn is exactly the type of radical activist we should avoid confirming to lead any Agency, especially an Agency as critical as the FCC. Her radical activist track record and her out-of-the-mainstream views on everything from free speech to intellectual property indicate to me she will weaponize the FCC against the American people.

Ms. Sohn has made no secret of the fact that she loathes Republicans, conservatives, and any media organization that doesn't share her world view. One need look no further than her deeming FOX News as ``state- sponsored propaganda.'' She has supported State governments and used their power to destroy conservative news outlets. When California's liberal legislature tried to pressure broadcasters into dropping conservative news organizations, she supported--yes, she supported-- their effort.

It doesn't stop there. If confirmed, she will have the power to censor conservative media and retaliate against any view that is different from her own.

Worse than her disdain--probably even hatred--for conservative news media, she has also made it clear that she simply detests Republicans as people. She has claimed Senate Republicans are a threat to ``our Republic'' and claimed their ``ideology has overtaken their duty to serve their constituents.'' She even claimed that Republicans can only win elections by ``suppressing the vote'' and destroying democracy.

As someone who won reelection in a State with a nearly 80-percent turnout in the last election, I can tell her that that isn't the case.

As if her disdain for conservative media and Republicans isn't enough, she has also demonstrated she is a radical, anti-copyright activist who will use every lever of power at her disposal to harm America's content creators.

For years, she dismissed the economic harms that our outdated copyright laws have caused content creators. She belittled their demonstrated pain and suffering, and she opposed efforts to fix the failed copyright system. During her time at the FCC as a senior adviser to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, Sohn championed the FCC's attempt to unlock pay-TV set-top boxes.

This disastrous policy would have destroyed the intellectual property rights of copyright owners to the benefit of big tech companies like Google, and these big tech companies have conveniently funded Sohn over the years.

She has never apologized for this disastrous policy. In a 2016 op-ed, Sohn downplayed any concerns with this proposal by proposing only a hypothetical solution to address them.

Finally, anyone who doubts her radical views on intellectual property need look no further than to the fact that she literally served on the board of directors of a company named Locast, whose sole purpose was to engage in illegal copyright infringement.

Let that sink in.

Gigi Sohn, a longtime anti-copyright activist who worked on policies at the FCC to destroy copyright owners' rights, then subsequently served on the board of a company that made money by infringing on copyright and likely made money from the illegal activity in the process and, not only that, I have real concerns that she appears to be hiding relevant information to the lawsuit. She failed to disclose the fact that the amount of money exchanged by Locast was much lower than the reported $32 million settlement. As an explanation, she stated that she answered the questions within the confines of the settlement agreement.

Playing ``hiding the ball'' while seeking a position of public trust is not acceptable. I believe her nomination would undermine public confidence in the FCC and our government.

If this were any other nominee, especially a Republican nominee, any one of these issues would be enough for my colleagues on this side of the aisle to stand up and ask the President of our party to withdraw the nominee. I hope my Democratic colleagues will review Ms. Sohn's record, just like I have, in a fair and impartial manner, and reach the only reasonable conclusion; that she cannot and must not be confirmed.

I again call on President Biden to withdraw the nomination of Gigi Sohn. If he won't, I hope I can count on 51 Senators to stand with me and make it clear that we won't allow such a radical activist to be confirmed to the FCC.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.