Be assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department. Earlier the approved the centers for medicare and Medicaid Services and that vote was 5544 per it also, this week science and Technology Bill, live Senate Coverage now here on cspan2. E e senate will come to order. The presiding officer the senator from arkansas. Mr. Cotton today the senate will vote on Kristen Clarkes nomination to head the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. I will of course oppose her nomination. We have a lot of partisan nominees around here, so thats not very surprising. But mrs. Clarke isnt just partisan, she is extremely is partisan. She called senator murkowski shameful. She accused senator manchin of being disingenuous and she casually slandered 200 200 sitting senateconfirmed judges as white male extremists. If confirmed for this position, she will be entrusted with representing the United States government in front of those very judges not exactly a credible advocate for our people, if you ask me. Ms. Clarkes radicalism doesnt stop with ad hominem insults. It thoroughly infects her professional judgment as well. Ms. Clarke has consistently demonstrated that shes more interested in attacking police and calling everybody a racist than finding the facts or reviewing the evidence. When it comes to racially incendiary cases, she proudly fans the flames division. Last year she repeatedly repeatedly spread the falsehood that jacob blake, who had a knife and was actively resisting arrest, was in fact unarmed when he was shot by the police. In part because of falsehooded like that one, riots engulfed the city of kenosha, wisconsin. She also claimed that officer darren wilson, who shot and killed Michael Brown in ferguson, missouri, was only exonerated based on racism. When i asked ms. Clarke if she had reconsidered that unsubstantiated opinion, she pretended not to know enough to answer the question at first, which is remarkable given that the shooting in ferguson is only one of the most publicized and explosive cases in recent years. Also remarkable because she apparently knew enough to tar a grand jury of normal american citizens as, yes, once again, racist. But not enough to answer simple questions. Ms. Clarkes opinion on the ferguson case sets her apart from other staunch liberals like vanita gupta and eric holder. Both have acknowledged that officer wilson was justified in the use of force, echoing the Obama Department of justice, which came to the very same conclusion. In defiance of all evidence, in spite of her good friend, ms. Guptas views, ms. Clarke still dissents from this conclusion. So i cannot believe it i am genuinely astonished but joe biden has somehow found a nominee more radical than vanita gupta. These an impressive accomplishment, one that should give senators who supported ms. Gupta more than ample ground to oppose ms. Clarke. Moreover, ms. Clarke is a vocal defender of defunding the police. Ms. Clarke wrote an article less than a year ago not some College Paper less than a year ago. Ms. Clarke wrote an article with defund the police in the title. She stated, quote, three times in the text of that article. She also wrote i advocate for Defunding Police remains. Call my naive, simple. When you write an article entitled defund the police and when you say we must invest less in the police and i advocate for defunding policing operations, it sounds to me like you support defunding the police. But apparently i am wrong about that. Because when she was asked about this at her hearing, ms. Clarke denied amazingly denied defunding the police. She actually meant that we should not defund the police. Astoundingly she blamed an editor for coming up with the title to her piece but conveniently cant recall what an alternative title she suggested would have been or whether she objected to a title that was apparently the exact opposite of what she intended. Now maybe this shouldnt be surprising. After all, her article title was, quote, i prosecuted police killings. Defund the police but be strategic. Apparently, the strategy is lying, because thats what we saw at our committee. We said, ms. Clarke, the title of your article is defund the police. I didnt choose the title. Ms. Clarke, you wrote three times in the title, defund the police. I dont support defunding the police. But you wrote here as well that we should invest less in the police. No, i dont think we should invest less. We should invest more. The old argument. Its not my dog. You kicked him first. Regardless of what she and her defenders might say, one thing is Crystal Clear a vote for Kristen Clarke is a vote to defund the police. Finally, not surprisingly, we come to ms. Clarkes consistent dishonesty, duplicity and evasion throughout her hearing and written statements. In one particularly bizarre incident, ms. Clarke claimed in her hearing that she was proud to have the endorsement of the National Association of police organizations, a group which represents nearly a quarter million Law Enforcement officers. Now, that would be big news, a huge endorsement, so i asked my staff to get me a copy of the endorsement letter. It turns out they couldnt because it doesnt exist. Now, thats not good. But people misspeak all the time. Especially when under pressure. So i wanted to give ms. Clarke a chance to correct the record. I asked for clarity in a written question. Thankfully ms. Clarke responded that she had misstated the facts. Okay, thats fine. I accept that explanation. Again, people misspeak. No one is perfect. Yet imagine my surprise when i received an answer to another written question that claimed almost verbatim the same thing she had said in her hearing, that she was endorsed by this organization. She similarly responded to at least three other senators that she was endorsed by this organization, even after admitting just a few pages earlier in her written answers that she had misstated that she had such an endorsement. At that point thats not a simple mistake. Its not misspeaking. Its not a fib. It is totally and completely untrue in written testimony to the United States congress. Yet she has not apologized. She has not acknowledged this blatant lie. This episode sadly proves that she lacks the transparency and honesty to be trusted in such an important position. You know, my democratic colleagues have for the last four years endlessly lectured about the need for the department of justice to be free of partisan politics. For it to be run by serious, competent individuals. They seem to have a slightly different view today. From her extremism to her lack of candor, ms. Clarke is unfit to lead any organization in the department of justice indeed, simply to serve in the department of justice. If the Democratic Senators vote to confirm ms. Clarke, they will be responsible for every battle she wages in joe bidens war on the police. I will make sure that their voters know about it. Madam president , i yield the floor. Mr. Durbin madam president . The presiding officer the assistant majority leader is recognized. Mr. Durbin i have eight requests for committees to meet today during this session of the senate which have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. The presiding officer duly noted. Mr. Durbin madam president , i ask consent to speak for 15 minutes before the roll call vote. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. Mr. Durbin madam president , it was one year ago today. It was a Street Corner in the city of minneapolis, the corner of 38th and chicago avenue. For nine minutes and 29 seconds, derrick chauffeur, the minneapolis policeman, knelt on George Floyds neck. As he knelt on his neck, he stared into a camera with a look that haunts me to this day. Those nine minutes and 29 seconds took George Floyds life and changed Americas National conversation about Law Enforcement. Those nine minutes and 29 seconds sparked a Global Movement and compelled us to bear witness to the reality of Racial Injustice in our country. In this senate, we are in a privileged position to face that reality and to continue americas long, sometimes bitter, march toward equal justice under the law. That is why i rise today in support of Kristen Clarkes nomination to be assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division of the department of justice. Its worth noting the history of this position. The Civil Rights Division is one of the most important components of the Justice Department. The Attorney Generals Office has existed since 1789. The Justice Department itself was not created until after our civil war. During the days of reconstruction, after that war, our nation resolved to take new steps to make a more Perfect Union through the 13th amendment abolishing slavery, the 14th amendments guarantee of due process and equal protection, and the 15th amendments protection of all citizens fundamental right to vote. The department of justice was created after the passage of those amendments and entrusted with the responsibility to defend the rights of americans, particularly the newly emancipated, formerly enslaved americans. Given the departments immediate imperative to protect and preserve civil rights, president ulysses s. Grant appointed amos achierman to be the first attorney general to lead this new department. Why . The extensive experience in prosecuting voter intimidation as the u. S. Attorney in the state of georgia. More than 150 years later, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department now is entrusted with that constitutional responsibility. The division enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, sex, sexual orient tailings, gender identity, disability, religion, National Origin and citizenship status. And just as president grant appointed a legal expert with a breadth of experience to lead the newly formed Justice Department in 1870, today President Joe Biden has chosen Kristen Clarke to take up the mantle as the hid of the Civil Rights Division. As the head of the Civil Rights Division. With her breadth of experience defending the civil rights of all mens, Kristen Clarke is singly qualified to lead this division, particularly at this moment in history. And, madam president , Kristen Clarke will be the first senateconfirmed woman of color to do so. The first. When i listened to the character can a tours that are when which listen to the caricatures on the floor of the senate about this woman, i find it hard to believe theyre talking about the Kristen Clarke we met in open senate hearings. We know what happened to the Civil Rights Division under President Trump. Under President Trump and attorney general sessions and barr, the Civil Rights Division was devastated. Over the past four years, the division rescinded guidance protecting transgender students, prohibited the use of consent decrees with local Police Departments that had engaged in systemic misconduct, and abandoned the position supporting americans fundamental right to vote. I believe America Needs a Civil Rights Division that vigorously defends the civil rights of all americans. Kristen clarke is the legal expert we need to restore and reinvigorate the Civil Rights Division. Notably, you wouldnt know it from the characterizations on the other side about her experience. Notably, she has been a veteran of two of the sections. She began her legal career defending Voting Rights in the voting section and later prosecuted hate crimes in the divisions criminal section. She personally understands of the key role that attorneys play in protecting civil rights. Since leaving the Civil Rights Division, she has continued to defend civil rights in National Civil rights organizations. First ms. Clarke coled the ncaap Voting Rights work, litigating Voting Rights cases under the Voting Rights act and the National Voter registration act. Then she served as a civil rights official for the new york state Attorney Generals Office where she played a key role to address faithbased discrimination. When you listen to those assignments and the fact that this woman was chosen to head these divisions, how can it possibly square with some of the care caricatures drawn on the floor today with who she is. She was chosen to lead the Civil Rights Division under the law. It is one of the most preeminent civil Rights Groups in america. During her tenure, the Lawyers Committee has taken on a huge caseload and doubled in size to address the most pressing civil rights issues of our time, including hate crimes. Heres the part that i want to make special emphasis on. Both vanita gupta and kristen m. Clarke have expensive endorsements from Law Enforcement organizations. And, yet, when they were characterized on the floor of the senate by their critics, they were characterized as haters of police and Law Enforcement. It just mystifies me how senators can come to the floor knowing these organizations and believe that these two women have hood winked them into believing they support Law Enforcement. The women and men in Law Enforcement arent pushed around and arnt easily deceived arent easily deceived. They endorse these two women and we have kristen m. Clarke record has been supported. Consider this statement from schaffer David Mahoney from davis county, wisconsin, recently stepped down from the National Sheriffs association. It is a powerful organization. Sheriff mahoney wrote and i want to quote his words after some of the outrageous charges made against ms. Clarke this afternoon. She wrote, Building Trust between Law Enforcement and communities is essential for Law Enforcement to effectively serve all members of our community. It is with this in mind that i strongly support kristen m. Clarke. Ms. Clarke has built trust at every stage of her career. Does that sound like someone who wants to defund the police. Do you think this sheriff mahoney from dane county in wisconsin would say that about someone who wants to defund police. He went on to say, when she was a federal prosecutor as a young attorney she gained the trust of federal agents, Domestic Violence survivors and crime victims, when she was chief of the cripple bureau cripple bureau, she built trust with the Lawyers Committee she gained the trust of hate crime victims and survivors. She has so many endorsements are from Law Enforcement groups, from prosecutors. Im not going to read them all into the record but i ask consent to be able to enter letters of consent for ms. Clarke into the record at this point. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Durbin the point im trying to make is this. At this moment in history, filling this division, the Civil Rights Division, on the anniversary of George Floyds murder on the streets of minnesota, we are chosing the first woman of color in the history of the United States to have this division. It is an historic choice. It shouldnt be trivialized by those who want to paint a caricature of a woman not even close to the truth. It shouldnt be tiflized by ignoring the many endorsements she received because of her good lifes work, having spent her entire career defunding the civil rights of all americans. She is the right person for the job. President biden believes it, the attorney general believes it. I believe it as well. At a time when weve seen an appalling rise in hate crimes, we need someone with her experience to head this division. I urge my colleagues to take note of the continued need for the Civil Rights Division to do its important work 150 years after its creation. Given that need and ms. Clarkes breadth and depth of experience, i urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of her nomination. I yield the floor. The presiding officer under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired. The question is on the nomination. Is there a sufficient second . There appears to be. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote vote vote the presiding officer the yeas are 51, the nays are 48, and the nomination is confirmed. Under the previous order, the president will be immediately notified of the senates action. The presiding officer the senator from kansas is recognized. A senator im here to talk about the origins of the kf covid covid19 virus. I wanting to thank the scientists who risked their lives to get their hints of their origin out to the rest of the world. Mr. Marshall i want to thank n. I. H. And dr. Collins whose team was able to stabilize the virus within a matter of weeks. This helped to launch the success of operation warp speed as well as other research for testing antivirals and vaccines. Here we are 16 months after the most Catastrophic Health disaster of our lifetime and we have more questions than answers. Three million lives were claimed. We dont know the geographical or biological origin. The world deserves to know and needs to know where it started. Was it naturally occurring or was it made in a lab. Im here today to tell you the preponderance of the evidence suggests this virus leaked from a lab in wuhan. Lets look at the mounting evidence that suggests covid19 is a super virus, the product of lab manipulations. In order to do this, we need to look at World History of two similar events and the great work of scientists surrounding the containment of sars in 2002 and mers in 2012. For sars it took time to find a host. It only took four months to prove the sars virus went from a bat to a sivit to a human. There were 24 viral ancestors to sars. It would not easily attach to human cells. For mers it took nine months to find the virus occurring naturally in bats and the intermediate host was camels. With covid19 here we are 16 months later and we dont have a host. The chinese tell us they tested over 80,000 viral defenses sequences and come up empty. No precursors, no grandfathers or great grandfathers. Knot nothing close has been found nothing close was found in nature. The closest is rat g19. This was supposedly from bats in wuhan and transported to scientists in the wuhan lab. And now they will not hand the information over to the world for study. Is it possible that it could have been manipulated into covid19 . So experts would say yes. We know based upon the words of the w. I. B. Researcher that there was a similar virus to rat g13, but the chinese will not share that either. What are they hiding . Here is another interesting feature of covid19. It likes humans more than bats. As a matter of fact, it doesnt harm bats. So the c. C. P. Propaganda claims it comes from bats but doesnt come from bats. Riddle me that. Furthermore, no ancestors of covid19 have been found. Recall what typically found in nature is multiple miew mutations. We should be able to find multiple mutations to human liking to human loving. We certainly welcome contrary evidence from the wuhan labs. If you will, forgive me of being a biology lover, as a physician we have to consider how seemingly too perfect for nature this virus really is. Covid is has a unique spike protein made up by two units, the first unit has an amazing affinity for human lung cells. It sticks like glue to human lung cells and it uses the same human lung rescepter that researchers in the u. S. And w. I. B. Have been working on together for viral gain of function and similar Lab Techniques for years. Perhaps in is just another coincidence. And to be fair, i really do think all the research has been done with the best of intentions to develop vaccines for a possible future epidemic. For all i know this may have sped up operation warp speed. Next we need to discuss one last point about this protein spike and how it interacts with human lung cells. If there is a smoking gun, this is it. Remember i talked about this having two components, two units, a human lung cell has a special cleaver, a cleaver that can recognize, you guessed it, a perfect spot on the covid19 spike. Bats dont have this ability but human lung cells do. Anyway, what happens is after the covid19 virus attaches to the human lung cell like glue, the human lung cell clevelands the covid19 in this perfect spot and only after this cleavage occurs can it dumb into the human cell and take over the human machinery. A virus needs another organism to reproduce and this covid19 virus, once it grabs human lung cells, its not letting go into it multiplies like rabbits. Once it dumps its genetic contents, something happens like a Nuclear Chain reaction, once it is ignited, it is impossible to stop. There are this is not seemingly a virus from mother nature. Think you get my point. Yes, i could be wrong, i hope im wrong, but only the wuhan labs have the data to prove me wrong and im afraid the data that would prove me right or wrong has been forever destroyed. The geographical origination of this virus is much less complex to discuss. Today all evidence points to the geographical start of this virus from or in close proximity to the wuhan labs. The wet market original theory has been disproved and it is the coverup we have seen too often. And now we know without any doubt multiple infections predated the january 2020 event surrounding the wet market theory. And all these infections can be traced to a close proximity of the wuhan labs. In fact, u. S. Intelligence reports recently confirmed that weve known for months that some w. I. B. Researchers were hospitalized as early as the fall of 2019. Just to be clear, these bats, known to harbor this family of viruses have a range of some 50 miles but live in caves thousands of miles away from wuhan. The chance of this bat carrying this virus thousands of miles away without leaving a trail, would be like the same person walking from new york to kansas and being struck by lightning seven times and surviving. China has the evidence to prove these theories wrong. I welcome that data. As a physician, senator, father, and grandfather, we have to assume and prepare for the worst and judge the situation on the body of evidence that best describes this event. We have to get to the bottom of this, regardless of whose fault it is or isnt. We will need to forgive and have others take responsibility. We cant keep burying our heads in the sandwich is why i sand, which is why i am calling on the u. S. Delegation to ensure that a full and Unrestricted International and scientific fronsic investigation into the origins will be authorized and for a parallel, comprehensive Senate Investigation into the origins as well. When thats finished, we need to take up the guardrails for viral function studies. In the meantime the American People and the world deserves to know the answers to the oranges inn of the origins of the covid19 virus. Thank you, madam president. And i yield the floor. The presiding officer the senator from vermont. Mr. Sanders madam president , i wanted to rise to say a few words about the u. S. Innovation and competition act which we are debating today. I think that the thrust of that act and what we are trying to accomplish is enormously important. Right now, as i think most people know, we have a crisis in terms of microchampionship reduction microchip reduction here in the United States and we are becoming increasingly dependent upon countries all over the world and both for our own Manufacturing Sector, the automobile sector, the electronic sector, that is a very bad position to be in, and also, obviously, being dependent on other countries for microchips is a dangerous place to be in terms of National Security. I especially like provisions in this legislation which will increase funding for research and development, increase funding for science and technology, and invest in more ph. D. s. The need for more ph. D. s in our country in science, technology, engineering, and math. I think those are very important steps in the right direction. But i do have some very serious concerns about two provisions in this bill. Number one, i am deeply concerned about the provisions which will provide 52 billion in emergency appropriations for the microchip industry with no strings attached. Let me repeat that. Were talking about 52 billion in federal funds, and, by the way, i suspect there will be more taxpayer money coming to these corporations from state and local government with no strings attached. And second of all, there is a provision in this bill, not only an appropriation but an authorization to provide some 10 billion to the Blue Origin Space Company which is owned by the wealthiest person in the world, mr. Bezos. When we talk about the microchip industry, we are talking about an industry that is not a poor, struggling industry. In fact, it is an extremely successful and wealthy industry that is worth now more than half a trillion dollars. More than 500 billion. We are talking about an industry, interestingly enough, that at the same time we are now trying to provide corporate welfare to them, this is an industry that has shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States over the past several decades and laid off 150,000 American Workers. So what you have is a situation that over the last few decades, these very large corporations said why do i want to stay in the United States of america, pay workers here a living wage, protect Environmental Standards . I can go to companies in asia and elsewhere and buy my products from them. The result, again, 780 manufacturing plants in the last several decades shut down in america, and 150,000 American Workers laid off. Now, lets talk about we dont know exactly, nobody does, where there is 52 billion in where this 52 billion in corporate welfare is going to go, but obviously it will go to some of the larger microchip companies. And one of the very largest is intel. Let me say a word about intel. Last year, intel made nearly 21 billion in profit. So we are proposing to provide many billions of dollars to a company that last year made 21 billion in profits. They spent 14. 2 billion on stock buybacks. 14. 2 billion on stock buybacks. And by the way, this company, which is in line for a major infusion of u. S. Taxpayer money, provided a 110 million signing bonus to its c. E. O. , patrick gelsinger. Since 2015, this very same company, intel, has shipped over 1,000 jobs overseas. Now, interestingly enough, intels c. E. O. Has admitted recently that it does not need corporate welfare. Lets give them credit for that. The c. E. O. Recently said, and i quote, his investment in america does not depend on a penny of Government Support or state support or any other investments to make it successful and never will, end of quote. They are prepared to do it on their own, which is what we hope most private corporations would do. Now, among the other very large leading microchip companies is the wellknown Texas Instruments, and they may well be in line to receive billions of dollars in corporate welfare as well under this piece of legislation. Last year, Texas Instruments made 5. 6 billion in profits and spent 2. 5 billion buying back its own stock while it has outsourced thousands of jobs to lowwage companies. The c. E. O. Of Texas Instruments made over 30 million in total compensation last year. More than 400 times as to what the median worker at that company made. And this is also another company in line to receive billions and billions of dollars in federal corporate welfare. Who else might receive corporate welfare under this bill . Well, how about the Major Semiconductor company from taiwan called the Taiwan Semiconductor manufacturing company, often referred to as tsmc, which is a very, very, very large microchip company, and it is interesting to note who is the largest shareholder in that company. Well, it should not surprise anybody because this is how countries around the world do industrial do industrial policy, but the largest shareholder in tsmc is the government of taiwan. So when you give tsmc money, youre giving that money directly to the government of taiwan. Samsung, another very large corporate entity, south korean. It owns several plants in texas. Global foundries. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of the united arab emirates. So what we are looking at here is a reality where taxpayer money from working people in this country will be going to large, profitable corporations, and several of them are owned literally by other entities. In total, madam president , the top five Semiconductor Companies that will receive grants that may that may well receive grants under this legislation made nearly 35 billion in profits and spent more than 18 billion buying back its own stock last year. So here is the bottom line. I believe that we do want to grow the microchip industry here in the United States of america for reasons that everybody is familiar with. That is, that is the industry that we need if were going to grow the automobile industry, the electronics industry, and every other industry in this country. We need to not be dependent upon china or other countries for the microchips that are used in these products. So i am sympathetic to the goal of this bill but i am not sympathetic with the idea of simply laying out 52 billion of taxpayers money with no strings attached. And that is why i have introduced Senate Amendment 1924. And this amendment would prevent microchip companies from receiving taxpayer assistance unless they agree to issue warrants to the federal government. If private companies are going to benefit from over 52 billion in taxpayer subsidies, the financial gains made by these Companies Must be shared with the American People, not just wealthy shareholders. In other words, madam president , all this amendment says is that if these Companies Want taxpayer assistance, we are not going to socialize all of the risks and privatize all of the profits. And let me be very clear. This is not a radical idea. This is not something that i made up or any other senator made up. These exact conditions were imposed on corporations that receive taxpayer assistance in the bipartisan cares act which passed the senate 960. In other words, every member of the United States senate has already voted for the conditions that are in the amendment that i cosponsored by senator warren, by the way. That is in the provisions that we the amendment that we are offering. Further, madam president , this amendment would also require companies again, all of this was in the cares act. Every member or at least 96 members of the senate voted for these conditions. Not a new idea. So in addition to making sure that companies allow for warrants, they would be demanded that they could not buy back their own stock, not outsource american jobs overseas, not repeal existing collective bargaining agreements, and remain neutral in any unionorganizing effort. Again, these are not new ideas, not radical ideas. All of these conditions are identical to the conditions that were placed in the cares act which passed 960. Madam president , i also want to say a word on the provision in there that would give some authorizes 10 billion for blue origins, a Company Owned by mr. Bezos. You know, when we were younger, and Neil Armstrong made it to the moon, there was incredible joy and pride in this country that the United States of america did something that people forever had thought was impossible. We sent a man to the moon. An extraordinary accomplishment, and the entire world watched that event with bated breath. Just an extraordinary accomplishment for all of humanity, not just the United States, but we had a special pride because that was our project. And i worry very much that what we are seeing now is two of the wealthiest people in this country, mr. Musk, elon musk, and mr. Bezos, deciding that they are going to take control over our space efforts to do to get to the moon and maybe even the extraordinary accomplishment of getting to mars, and what an accomplishment that would be. But i have to tell you that i have a real problem that to a significant degree we are privatizing that effort. So that as a nation, we will not sit with pride and saying we did it, but instead say well, you know, maybe mr. Bezos or maybe mr. Musk sent somebody to the moon or even to mars. This is something that should be an american effort, that all of us should be part of, and not simply be a private corporation undertaking. So i have got a real problem with the authorization of 10 billion going to somebody who, among other things, is the wealthiest person in this country. So, madam president , what i hope very much is that my amendment will be a part of the managers amendment. I suspect there are republicans who who often tell us about wanting to save taxpayers dollars and not just throw them about who would be sympathetic to this effort, and i know there are a number of democrats who are as well. So i would hope very much that my amendment, 1924, which will be modified to just include provisions that were in the cares bill, that it will be included in the managers amendment that we will be voting on shortly. With that, madam chair, i leave the microphone. The presiding officer the senator from texas. Mr. Cornyn madam president , texas has always been a proud supporter of an all of the above energy strategy. Were often recognized as an oil and gas powerhouse which we are, but most folks dont know were the number one producer of energy from wind, the number one renewable resource. In fact, we now produce onequarter of all of our electricity onequarter of all wind energy in the United States. So if texas were a country and my friend from vermont may be interested in this, wed be the fifth largest wind Energy Producer in the world. Mr. Sanders i did know that. Mr. Cornyn and we dont have any plans of stopping there. Were also making serious strides in energy innovation. A couple of years ago i visited the net power plant in laporte, texas, right outside of houston. Net power is significant because its developed the first of its kind power system that generates affordable zero emissions electricity. Using their unique Carbon Capture technology, they have taken natural gas, one of the most prevalent and Affordable Energy sources, and made it emission free. Thats what innovation can produce. Emission free electricity from natural gas. As impressive as this project is, though, its made even better by the fact that its not unique. Private companies are harnessing the power of human ingenuity to make our most used Energy Sources emission free. Earlier this year, for example, exxonmobil announced a 100 billion Carbon Capture and storage project in the houston area otherwise known as the Energy Capital of the world. This would create a Carbon Capture Innovation Zone to significantly reduce Carbon Emissions. Exxonmobil estimates this project has the potential to store up to a hundred Million Metric Tons of carbon per year by the year 2040. A decade later carbon houston could be carbon neutral. These kind of developments think are incredibly exciting, and they showcase once again the power of innovation not by the government but by the private sector. If were able to reduce emissions without harming our energy security, raising taxes, or killing highpaying jobs or driving up costs to consumers on a fixed income, why wouldnt we . Breakneck changes in technology have fueled our economy, propelled the communications sector, and completely transformed our daily lives. Its time to harness American Ingenuity to revolutionize the energy sector. Smart policies cant prioritize only conservation, productivity, or economic power. We need to strike a balance of all three. Youre simply not going to achieve the balance by imposing heavyhanded regulations or making it more expensive. Unfortunately that seems to be exactly the path our democratic colleagues in the finance Committee Want to take. Over the last couple of years, weve seen no shortage of unrealistic and downright harmful policies that are advocated for in the name of reducing Carbon Emissions. Some of our colleagues have produced proposed everything from the socialist paradise that is the Green New Deal to a more targeted but no more realistic net zero emissions bill. Tomorrow as i suggested, the finance committee will mark up the latest proposal, legislation introduced by chairman wyden known by the innocuous name of the clean energy for america act. But the bill is anything but innocuous. The bill proposes a complete overhaul of the energy tax code to finance a full gamut of clean energy policies. At its core its an antifossil fuel bill. Given the fact that more than 60 of our electricity is generated by fossil fuels, that strikes me as a pretty radical position to do. This proposal uses a variety of tax increases to place a squeeze on fossil fuel producers and to push america toward renewables which accounted for no less than 20 of our Energy Production last year. In other words, they want to push us into the renewable space that only accounted for 20 of our Energy Production, completely unrealistic. This proposal would drive up costs for american Energy Producers and consumers who would be the ones ultimately footing the bill. Namely, Senior Citizens and those on fixed incomes would be the ones hurt the most. I also have serious concerns about how this dramatic shift would impact our energy security. The higher cost on domestic oil would once again make u. S. Reliant on countries like russia, iran, and venezuela for our energy needs. Obviously we can all see the dangers that would produce. Our friend john mccain aptly described russia one time as a gas station massacre raifding as a country masquerading as a country. It was pretty funny but its also pretty accurate. Having the u. S. And our other allies over a ball because of the lack of Energy Diversification and Domestic Production gives our gives them a lot of power and too much power. We know what its been like for recent decades before we became more selfsufficient when it came to Energy Production. I remember back in 1980, jimmy carter famously issued the Carter Doctrine after the soviets invaded afghanistan. He subjected that if anyone, any country, any adversary of the United States were to blockade of the strait of hormuz, it would be an act of war because the oil that flows that flowed through the strait of hormuz was extension for our National Security and our economy. So why in the world would we want to return to those bad old days when we were dependent on imported energy. Well, this issue was further underscored in 2009 when russia effectively turned off the gas in ukraine for almost three weeks. This affected at least ten countries in europe whose natural gas flowed through that pipeline in ukraine. If these tax hikes slowly strangle u. S. Energy companies, we could end up in the same position, dependent on others for our basic energy needs. After years of building our Energy Independence and strengthening our energy security, now is not the time to turn back the clock. We simply should not put ourselves in a position where were reliant on any other country let alone our adversaries to keep our lights on and to keep our economy humming. And the consequences dont stop there. The unharming our security, the legislation that the finance committee will consider tomorrow will kill countless highpaying jobs. It would weaken our Global Competitiveness and reverse the economic gains weve made because of a thriving oil and gas industry. And thats just scratching the surface of this misguided bill. One of the most outrageous provisions, though, is the electric vehicle tax credit proposal. We all know that out of the 280 million cars on the road in america, that the vast majority of americans drive cars take run on gas that run on gas or diesel. When they fill up their tank at the gas station, they pay a user fee or tax on every gallon they buy. Some of that money goes into the Highway Trust Fund, the pot of money that pays to build and repair the roads and bridges we drive on every day. As we all know, though, the Highway Trust Fund is in dire straits unless something changes the shortfall over the next decade is expected to be nearly 200 billion. Those who drive electric cars dont buy gasoline obviously. They dont contribute to the Highway Trust Fund. They dont pay anything to drive on the roads and bridges every other american has to pay for and ultimately subsidizes. The proposal by the chairman of the finance committee doubles down on this problem and makes americans do even more to subsidize the pricey electric vehicles owned by wealthy consumers. This legislation extends electric vehicle incentives which will come at the cost of other taxpayers without addressing the fact that electric vehicles are already driving on taxpayerfunded roads virtually free of charge. This is incredibly expensive and benefits only a limited group of wealthy americans. Lets compare the cost of this program to the Carbon Capture projects i mentioned. Current electric vehicles subsidies equate to spending about 455 for every ton of co2 thats reduced. As a reminder the sup this applies only to Emission Reduction to cars. Electric vehicle subsidies have zero bearing on the Carbon Emissions of the Manufacturing Sector or Power Generation or other emission industries. Carbon capture and storage like the exxonmobil project i mentioned earlier can apply to virtually every source of emissions and at a much lower cost. Co2 can be abated for 100 to 200 per ton. Thats less than half the price of an electric vehicle subsidy. Madam president , i support efforts to reduce Carbon Emissions, to preserve our air, land, and water for future generations. But those efforts dont have to come at this sort of exorbitant price. You can support all Energy Sectors and innovation and conservation. These are not mutually exclusive. One great example is a bill introduced i introduced called the leading act which was signed into law last year. This legislation incentivizes the research and development of Carbon Capture technology for natural gas and innovation in the Industry Energy industry at large. Thats how we can keep costs down for taxpayers and maintain this revolution in the energy sector. So, madam president , ill continue to push back on efforts to weaken our Energy Independence and harm our economy and purr in pursuit of arbitrary goals. Theres simply no reason to stick taxpayers with the bill for these unnecessary policies when there are better commonsense ways to promote both innovation and conservation. Ms. Cantwell madam president . The presiding officer the senator from washington. Ms. Cantwell i ask consent that the senate resume legislative session, that the senate resume consideration of s. 1260, and that the following amendments be called up and reported by number. Wyden 1975, crapo 1565, paul 2003, ernst 1507, daines 1787, and lee 1891. Further, that at 4 45 p. M. Today, the senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed with no amendments in order to these amendments prior to the vote in relation to the amendment with a 60 affirmative vote required for adoption and two minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. A senator madam president . The presiding officer the senator from mississippi. Mr. Wicker for a moment before we proceed. This is an important step in the consideration of the endless frontier act. Weve just locked in six votes for this afternoon, two important sidebysides, wyden and crapo on finance committee matters, a paul amendment on the National Institutes of health funds being used in china, and ernst amendment on the wuhan lab, daines amendment on international property, and china intellect property and china and the lee amendment on stem cell research. This is a great step forward. The senate is proceeding this afternoon to regular order and regular order allowing senators to come forward, 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 weve locked in six 15minute votes. In fairness really, the five subsequent votes should be 10minute votes. We can fool around and wander in here for hours and be here until 8 00, or we can begin at 4 45 and resume the practice that we have 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 senator simply has missed votes, then we can do this in an orderly fashion. I have an appointment at 5 30, madam president , that ive 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 early afternoon mighting canceled and we could get back to quick votes, be considerate of others and realize that we may miss votes. I would make that suggestion and i would thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the hard work in locking in these six votes. And i yield back. The presiding officer under the previous order, the senate will resume s. 1260, which the clerk will report. The clerk calendar number 58, s. 1260, a bill to establish a new directorate for technology in the National Science foundation and so forth and for other purposes. The presiding officer under the previous order, the following amendments will be called up and reported by number. The clerk ms. Cantwell for other senators proposes en bloc amendments 1975, 1565, 2003, 1507, 1787, and 1891. Mr. Carper mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from delaware. Mr. Carper mr. President, i rise this afternoon along with several of our colleagues to discuss the need to end the policy of taxation without representation, which millions of americans in the District Of Columbia have endured over for over 200 years and hundreds of thousands still endure today. This policy was wrong in 1776 when 13 colonies took on the mightiest nation on earth to end it. It is wrong today. And we seek to end it through the enactment of s. 51, the washington, d. C. , admission act. In just six days our country will observe memorial day, a holiday often observed to mark the start of summer, celebrate it the start of summer. But on memorial day this year, many of us will pause to remember generations of americans in our armed forces that have laid down their lives fora country. This day means something to my own family. My own maternal grandmother was a gold star mother. With the death of john mccain, i am the last vietnam veteran sesqui in the United States senate. The names of some 58,000 men and women with whom john and i served 0 blased on a black granite wall on the mall, mimes from where we are standing today. The names include brave men and women from washington, d. C. , as well. Since world war i in fact over 5,000 americans from the District Of Columbia have lost their lives in service to the United States. And today roughly 15,000 d. C. Residents are on active duty or serving as reservists or members of the National Guard in their states. Thats 15,000 americans serving dutifully in the army, navy, the air force, and marines or the coast guard. Our nations capitol is home to more than just monuments and museums, mr. President. It is home to americans who work, who start businesses and who contribute to americas economy. Just like all 50 states represented in this body, the District Of Columbia is home to veterans and Service Members who risked their lives for our country. Even today. But year after year they come home to find that they are still denied the ability to have a real say in our nations future. These heroes are among the nearly 700,000 americans who call the district home, and for generations have lived without voting representation in congress. Thats why i view washington, d. C. s statehood not as a republican or democratic issue, not as a political issue, but as an american issue, as an issue of basic fairness and equality. He recall whyer this year, the senior senator from utah sought to overturn a law passed by the d. C. City council right here on the senate floor. As u. S. Senators, neither of us should have such an opportunity to intervene in a local matter like that. But in the senate, we have power over the budget of the District Of Columbia, a city that has a double aplus credit rating. Double aplus. From an old state treasury, thats pretty good. Better than most states, in fact, if you check. You we also have confirmation power over the districts judges, which has led to extensive vacancies sometimes for years. Thats wrong. I remind my colleagues that that day that no one in this room was elected by the people of the District Of Columbia, nobody in this room was elected by the people of the District Of Columbia. And no one here as able to stand up and represent their interests. This should be unacceptable until a 21st century democracy. In a 21st century democracy. However, i believe the tide is starting to turn. I believe we can finally make d. C. Statehood a reality during this congress, the 117th congress. We have a fearless champion in the house, congresswoman Eleanor Holmes norton. With her leadership along with that of the speaker and leader steny hoyer, the house passed the d. C. Statehood bill last month for the second time ever. We also have for the first time a president who formally supports ending this moderndate policy of taxation without representation. And in the senate we have a record 45 cosponsors on our bill to make the District Of Columbia a state, a number that represents members from rural and urban areas alike. This number has grown steadily since my friend, our former colleague, joe lieberman, a fiercely independent senator led this charge in the senate before passing the baton to me in 2013. I know some of our colleagues have said that d. C. Statehood is unconstitutional. To be clear, the District Of Columbia has taken the same steps towards statehood that 37 other states have taken, the same steps, a process clearly laid out in our constitution. This case was made clearly in a letter to Congress Just this week from nearly 40 leading constitutional scholars to wrote that congress is well within its rights to grant statehood. On a different holiday later this summer, mr. President, well be celebrating july 4, to remember those who fought for our independence. And id remind my colleagues again that the founding fathers, the same men who wrote our constitution, had a cry during the revolutionary war. That is exactly what is happening to the citizens of the District Of Columbia today. The realities that these citizens may the most get this. The citizens of the District Of Columbia pay the most in per capita federal income taxes in the u. S. , more than any other state, but they have no say in how those dollars are spent. None. The secondclass statistic us a miscome to an end the secondclass status must come to an end. And we are the ones who can 0 do something about it. You can always count on america to do the right thing in the end, said churchill, after theyve tried everything else. Its never too late to do the right thing. The right thing to do now is to ensure that nearly 700,000 americans living in the District Of Columbia, severing in our military, voting severing in our military, voting serving in our military, voting actually have the right to vote for those in this body and in it the house. With the that i thank you and i yield the floor to some of my colleagues who i believe will be joining us in this call, including the senator from new jersey. Mr. Booker mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from new jersey. Mr. Booker i am honored to join in the colloquy on this urgent issue to really talk about the central function of our democracy, whether the ideals of this nation are real for every american. Now, if you cut me, im going to bleed jersey, but let me tell you very plainly, im proud to have grown up in jersey, but im also proud to have been born in washington, d. C. This is where my parents met after college. This is where they fell in love. Their first date was at the Jefferson Memorial in the paddleboats there in the reflecting pool. They there remember telling me just the love they had for each other that was already dawning but also this fierce allegiance to this Incredible Community that is washington, d. C. My mom talked about the activism that was here. She was working for the Public Schools as a speech pathologist. And she talked about this patriotic feel that she had, especially when she was helping to organize the march on washington. The words on the Jefferson Memorial where my parents had their first date at the end of the declaration of independence, we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. Thats what we are called to pledge to one another. But for too long, the people of this city have not had the honor, the privileges, the equal Citizenship Rights that so many others in every state in our union, in all parts of our democracy enjoy. These are rights, as my colleague said, that washington, d. C. In fact disproportionate to many other states people from this community have bled for an died for. This century city is an extraordinary place, it is a community, it outnumbers in fact in population other states, and we believe that the ideals of one person, one vote, no taxation without representation, that all of these are rights being denied fellow americans. Where is the honor in that . Veterans and Service Members living here in d. C. Who did indeed fight for us, put their lives on the line for us, but do not have equal Citizenship Rights. The people of d. C. Pay both local and federal taxes, they go to help the people in red states and blue states, they are a city that pays more taxes than theyre necessarily receiving back, but when the people of d. C. Need help, when they need an advocate with voting power, they dont have one in this body. Or in the one across the hall. The lack of representation really has consequences, serious ones. It significantly decreases d. C. s leverage inest going laws passed and in getting laws passed. We saw this firsthand in the first covid19 stimulus bill. Washington, d. C. , received 725 million less in critical aid than other less populous states. That was funding needed for washington, d. C. , first responders, for covid19 tests, and other important lifesaving services. They were treated as secondclass citizens. How is this fair . How is this just . How is this sacred honor . And how can this be partisan . These are sacrosanct values for those of us on both sides of the aisle. This is how our democracy was intended to function. These were some of the elements of the revolutionary war. Im hardpressed to believe that my colleagues on either side of the aisle dont recognize that to deny the people of washington, d. C. , representation is contrary to the values that we state regularly on this floor. Making d. C. A state is truly a civil rights issue. And its also an issue of racial justice. D. C. Is a majorityminority city and the people of this city deserve the same opportunity that other less populated states have to make their voices heard in congress. This is especially urgent as we are seeing so many states around the country enact sweeping voting laws intended to make it harder for the d. C. Majority black and brown folks to even vote. As United States senators, we have an obligation not just to pass laws but to be stewards of democratic ideals and principles. We took an oath to that. Making d. C. A state is not just a matter of civil rights for d. C. , its about all of us because our democracy will only survive as long as its true representation is that of all of its people, that truly we know in this nation, as has been said by greater leaders before us, that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. The people of d. C. Have made clear what they want. Saying it loudly, they deserve full Citizenship Rights. They deserve the right to vote. They deserve the right to have representation. They want to be the 51st state. They should be the 51st state. My parents lived many years in this city. And i heard about d. C. Statehood as a little boy growing up in new jersey. For them, it was a matter of dignity and respect. It was a matter of valuing this community. And and the richness of its people. To them it is a shortfall in the evolution of our democracy that the people of this great city should be denied the very ideals that are written on the Jefferson Memorial. I urge my colleagues to move on this and to grant this d. C. Statehood and to afford them the sacred honor that all americans deserve. I yield the floor. The presiding officer the senator from virginia. Mr. Kaine mr. President, im thrilled to rise and join my colleagues in pressing the case for d. C. Statehood. I wont be long because i was on the floor about three weeks ago talking about this same matter, and i really talked about virginia, and i talked about Patrick Henry. The phrase no taxation without representation is a phrase that we learn come up in Elementary School. The root of it isnt really at the beginning of say the declaration of independence or during the revolutionary war. That phrase really came about as columnist rallied to oppose the stamp act. The stamp act was an act of parliament in 1765 that put a tax on paper goods, including newspapers and pamphlets and periodicals, the english crown was getting very, very worried about the rest of nature of americans pressing their case for being treated equally as as loyal colonists and subjects of the crown, but they were not happy with the way they were being treated. And the stamp act was not just an aact to to levy attacks but to shut down discussions. Patrick henry led an effort in the Virginia Assembly in 1765 that became to be known as the four resolves. He put five resolves on the table but four passed and the core of the four resolves was to pass takessation without representation. Never to have heard Patrick Henry, although ive heard good Patrick Henry imitations, the give me liberty or give me death on the verge of the United States declaring independence, his Court Advocacy as a relatively untrained lawyer in virginia on behalf of religious freedom so that people who are not part of the established church of england could practice their faith as they chose. Many believed that henrys advocacy against the stamp act was his most powerful oarory. I read excerpts from the resolves from three weeks online, but now i want to jump from Patrick Henry to somebody else and that is frederick douglass. If d. C. Becomes a state, it will become a state named in honor of the be abolitionist frederick douglass. He was enslaved for the first 20 years of his life and following the civil war he moved to the nations capitol to become so many things, diplomat, civil rights leader, confidante of president lincoln and grant and others. In his autobiography, he wrote, quote, the District Of Columbia is the one spot where there is no government for the people, of the people, and by the people. Its citizens submitted to rulers to whom theyve had no choice in selecting. They obey laws in which they had no voice in making, plenty of taxation, but no representation. In the great politics of the country, they can march with neither army, Neither Party but are regulated to the position of neuters, that is Patrick Henrys speech earlier against the stamp act. Those words are as true today when he wrote them and they were as true when he wrote them as when Patrick Henry delivered them in 1765. The history of most states coming into the union, there are some common themes annual the two commonalities, but then theres one quirk that i want to mention as i conclude. The two commonalities are that states come into the union when they achieve sufficient population and when they have a demonstrated desire that is not just temporary but essentially fixed and permanent. In the mid1800s, congress would set a population deadline, say for example in the northwest territories, michigan was told as soon as you get to 60,000 residents, we will entertain you if you want to be a state but you have to do a referendum. There is no minimum number to become a state, but we would agree that d. C. Would pass any minimum because d. C. Is larger than states that are part of the union. Whatever criteria you might set you need to be a sufficient size to be a state, d. C. Has met that. D. C. Has demonstrated where the overwhelming certaintiment of d. C. , sentiment of d. C. , as you would expect, is a patriotic sentiment. We want to be a state of the greatest country on earth. Those two criteria have been sufficient for states having demonstrated that or territories or populations that have demonstrated that to become part of the union and have their star added to the flag of this country. There have been controversies, though, bluntly, when states have sizable minority populations. The quest of hawaii for statehood took longer than it otherwise would have because many members of this body stood on the floor and expressed concerns about whether hawaii could be a cultural match for the United States because of the predominant a. P. I. And indigenous population and im sad to say that some of those who took the floor and raised those questions an objections were from virginia. The state of new mexico had a particularly rocky path to becoming a state because members of this body, including from virginia, took the floor and raised the question about the size, the population, the percentage of new mexicos indigenous and latino population. About 46 of the population of d. C. Is African American. Folks who many march in the footsteps and quest for the same equality that frederick frederis was questing for in the 1800s. I hope that we can show that the failures of the past that led statehood for new mexico and hawaii to take perhaps longer than should have been the case, i hope we will have learned something from that and can move finally to grant these 700,000 plus residents of this wonderful city in our Nations Capital the ability to be states. The last thing i will a say is this and i said this on the floor three months ago. We havent added a state, we havent added a star to our flag now for about 70 years now. I dont think a fixed number of stars on the flag sends a message of a growing, thriving nation. I think it might send the message of a nation thats kind of fixed. And when youre fixed and set and not going to change, i believe that can almost send a little bit of message of decline. Throughout our nations history the addition of stars to the flag has sent the message of an american were not done growing, were not done expanding, were on the move. History isnt done with us yet, and the fact that we havent added a state this has been the longest period of time in the history of the United States where we havent added a star to the flag and i think doing so would suggest very powerfully that the best days of our nation arent behind us, they are still ahead of us. And so for these reasons and those articulated by my colleagues, i strongly support the effort for d. C. Is it statehood and i yield the floor. A senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from maryland. Mr. Van hollen mr. President, i want to start by thanking the senior senator from delaware for his longtime persistence in making sure that this congress ultimately does the right thing and makes the District Of Columbia the 51st state. I want to thank congresswoman Eleanor Holmes norton for helping the people of the District Of Columbia so ably. She deserves a vote in the house of representatives just like every other member of the house of representatives from the 50 states. And the District Of Columbia deserves two senators right here in the United States congress, and i want to thank President Biden for saying if this senate will just get this bill to his desk, he will sign that piece of legislation and make sure the people of the District Of Columbia are represented as every other citizen in the 50 states is currently represented. All of us come to this floor and we hear our colleagues on both sides of the aisle talking about the importance of democracy overseas. We criticize china rightly when it begins to snuff out the right to vote. In hong kong, we criticize the authoritarian rulers in belarus when they clamp down on freedom. We look around the world and we try to establish a standard for standing up for the principle of democracy. Were not always consistent. Were not always constant in that message, but we make an effort to do that. We need to look in the mirror and make that same effort right here at home. I hear sol of my colleagues so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the importance of democracy around the world, but when it comes to granting the people of the District Of Columbia the full rights to democracy, the right to votes in the senate and a vote in the house house, they are not there. The people of the District Of Columbia are fed up and tired of the hypocrisy. They are even more fed up about what my friend and colleague, the senator from virginia, was just talking about. The fact that they contribute in every way to our country but are denied the right to have voting representation in the house and the senate. The senator from virginia said, and others have said, a founding principle of our revolution was the idea that nobody should be subject to taxation without representation. The senator from virginia talked about Patrick Henry, and there are others that we know established that principle, and yet here in the Nations Capital, the people of the District Of Columbia pay higher taxes than those in 22 other states and yet they dont have a vote in the house or two senators represent them. They also had people who served in every one of our wars who spilled blood for this country, and yet while they helped to protect our democracy from threats abroad, they dont have the right here in our democracy to cast those votes for voting representatives in the house and the senate. Mr. President, this is not a partisan issue. We know it shouldnt be. We know that if every member put on a blindfold and just said the people of the District Of Columbia deserve a vote without thinking of the political outcome, the people of the District Of Columbia would have a state, as others have pointed out, two states have smaller populations but they have two senators who can cast votes here in this chamber. The state of wyoming and the state of vermont, both smaller populationwise than the District Of Columbia, but they have those rights and representatives here in the United States senate. So we should move forward with the state of washington, douglass commonwealth, and to hear our republican colleagues oppose this idea since they dont want to take it on the principle of democracy, weve heard some absurd reasons given for why the District Of Columbia should not be a state. Here are a few, and if anybody doubts that republican members in the house or senator have said these things, ill be happy to show it to you. Weve heard from members of congress that people in the District Of Columbia dont deserve statehood because it doesnt have a landfill. Weve heard that the District Of Columbia shouldnt be given statehood because it needs more Car Dealerships. At first they said it cant be a state because it has no Car Dealerships but now it doesnt have enough of them. Others have said, well, because it lacks a mining industry, how could it possibly be a state . And then most recently we heard that it would be unfair unfair to give the people of the District Of Columbia statehood because their representatives would have and you fair advantage. They would have special superpowers because they would be so close to this capitol that theyd somehow be able to get an unfair leg up on everybody else here in the United States senate. These are reasons that Republican House members and senators have given for denying the people of the District Of Columbia the right to statehood. We all know what they are. Its just a wall of excuses trying to obfuscate and prevent us from getting to the main issue. If you dont want to talk about the principle of democracy, change the subject. The real concern, as we know, is that the people of the District Of Columbia will cast votes for representatives in the house and senate that they think best reflect their interests, and they believe that in the current situation, those seats will go to democratic members in the senate and the house. And as my colleagues have said, the District Of Columbia is comprised of a majority of people of color, and the senator from virginia talked about the history of that having been an impediment to the admission of some other states in the past before the country did the right thing. Mr. President, we have the power to do the right thing. I have here a letter from 39 constitutional scholars affirming our authority to make the District Of Columbia the 51st state. We should do it. Frederick douglass once noted that the District Of Columbia was, quote, one spot where there is no government for the people, of the people, and by the people. His words are a call from history, a call that demands that we reflect on this act of selective disenfranchisement that has been happening for generations and which is still happening to this day right outside of this building right now. Let us change that today. Let us change that and make this the 51st state and name it in honor of frederick douglass. I yield the floor. Mr. Cardin mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from maryland. Mr. Cardin i first want to thank my colleague and friend, senator carper, for leading this effort on s. 51, the d. C. Statehood act. Its long overdue that we acknowledge an injustice in our country and give the citizens of the District Of Columbia their full Representation Rights by statehood. I have been working on this issue for a long time. When i was speaker of the maryland General Assembly almost 40 years ago, the maryland General Assembly took action to give full representation to the people of the district and the congress of the United States. That was 40 years ago, and were still working on this issue. Its long overdue that we acknowledge a shortcoming in our own system for 700,000 residents of the District Of Columbia. I had the honoring of chairing the u. S. Helsinki commission. Its the implementing arm for the helsinki final act, the organization for security and cooperation in europe. It has membership of all the countries of europe and the former soviet union, central asia, canada, and the United States. I mention that because in 1975, those countries entered into an agreement on basic fundamental democratic principles, including the right to have representative government. That document also gives us the opportunity and obligation to question whether Member States are in compliance with the helsinki final act, and quite frankly we have used that opportunity to ravishes in countries, and our presiding officer has been very aggressive in his comments about russia. We use that to bring up that russia violated the commitments of the helsinki final act when it invaded ukraine, took over crimea, and still interfering with the sovereignty of ukraine. We offered our objections when russias government steps on the rights the human rights of the people of their own country. Navalny, the Opposition Leader being imprisoned and tortured. Thats a violation of the helsinki final act. We raised those issues. We raised those issues about another member state in turkey when they jailed journalists or failed the Civil Society an student to be heard, violations of the helsinki final act. But for us to have credibility in raising these issues with other countries that are violating the fundamental principles, we have to selfevaluate where we are. If we are going to be leaders, we have to acknowledge our own shortcomings and take steps to eliminate those shortcomings. And quite frankly, mr. President, we are an outlier when it comes to the representation for the people of the District Of Columbia. We have violated their basic rights. We are the only country in the world where citizens of their capital do not have the opportunity to vote for representatives in the national legislature. Thats not a distinction that we want to have. For the 700,000 people that live in the district, they are being denied representation in their government. As has been pointed out, its larger than some of our states. Those states that have fewer people have two United States senators, and as a member of the house of representatives, the people of the district should be likewise treated. And this is not a matter of politics. This is a matter of fundamental rights. Americas strength in our values, who we are as a people, our ability to lead globally depends upon us doing the right thing at home. We need to give the District Of Columbia that status. The house has already done this. They have passed h. R. 1 51. They have done this. They have given the bill to us. All we need to do now is take it up and pass it. So let us act now at long last and do whats right for the people of the district and do whats right for the people of our nation by correcting this violation that we have in our system. And lets pass s. 51 led by senator carper, d. C. Statehood, and make sure that america continues to lead in Democratic Values around the world. With that, mr. President, i yield the floor. A senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from indiana. Mr. Young i ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks before any roll call votes. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. Mr. Young mr. President, this week is indy 500 week in the state of indiana. For these seven days, hoosiers will be swept up in the pageantry and the tradition of the greatest spectacle in racing. Every minute this week is leading toward the moment when the white flag comes out, signifying the final lap, when the drivers make one last push toward the finish line. I couldnt help but thinking about this annual tradition as we enter the homestretch on the endless frontier act in the coming days. The legislation has evolved, improved, and grown over the last few months. We now know it as the u. S. Innovation and competition act, but as we head into this week, i thought it important to reset and refocus on why we began this journey in the first place. Now, for me, it began back in 2019 in the gym, of all places. Where one morning, senator schumer and i began talking about the need to go on offense against the Chinese Communist party. Since the cold war, beijing has aimed to overtake america, not with weapons, but through innovation, through economic growth, through made in china 2025, beijing set out on a deliberate plan to dominate the world through Strategic Investments in emerging technologies, all of which have the potential to fundamentally change this centurys economic and security environment for good or for ill. Now, until now, we have primarily focused on defensive countermeasures to thwart aggression by the Chinese Communist party. Blocking huawei, imposing export controls, improving Foreign Investment rules. Now, look, these priorities are really important, and they must remain part of the mix, but if america is to lead the world in the 21st century, its neither realistic nor practical to build an economic iron curtain around china. You see, just as we did in the 20th century, we mustnt simply contain our leading global competitor, but instead outinnovate and outgrow them. We must go on offense. The endless frontier act was and is our effort to do just that, to make the kind of research in science investments we havent made for decades, creating a new Technology Directorate at the National Science foundation and creating regional tech hubs to ensure we are leveraging the talents and abilities of americans across the country. And the corresponding economic benefits reach those in the heart of our country, not just those on the coast. This legislation will be a boost to our economy, but make no mistake, its not just about the economy. This is about deciding which standards, which values are going to animate these new technologies in the future. The values we see cracking down on protesters in the streets of hong kong, the values that enslave millions of uighurs in xinjiang or our American Values which recognize that all men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. America is watching. The free world is watching. And all who are watching should be encouraged. You see, this body has largely embraced this objective. Weve continued to go through regular senate order and increasingly rare an increasingly rare accomplishment in this body, allowing each member to offer amendments to improve this legislation. In fact, it was marked up in the Senate Commerce committee and approved by a vote of 244. 244. Last week, it came to the senate floor. We considered more amendments. This week, we will consider even more amendments. As is typically the case in regular order, nobody gets everything they want, including the bills authors. As one example, through the markup process, less investment than i had originally proposed will now be provided to the n. S. F. Pack directorate. But thats okay. Its okay because this change and others are ones i can live with so that we can come together and prove that our system works while advancing a once in a Generation Investment in science and technology. We must send a message to the authoritarians in beijing. They say were too divided to lead the world in the 21st century. Its time to come together and prove them wrong. As we hoosiers say at the indianapolis motor speedway, the white flag is out. This is the final lap for this bill in the United States senate. I look forward to seeing this open process through to the finish line so that together we can outcompete, outinnovate, and outgrow the Chinese Communist party. Thank you, mr. President. A senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from idaho. A senator mr. President, i ask unanimous consent that i and senator wyden and senator schumer be able to complete our remarks before the vote. The presiding officer without objection. A senator thank you. Mr. President, i rise today to speak on amendment number 1565 to the u. S. Innovation and competition act or usica, the underlying bill. Mr. Crapo my amendment preserves the Constitutional Authority of congress over international trade. It does so by ensuring the president cannot waive or modify a congressionally approved trade agreements including the w. T. O. Agreement on trade related aspects on intellectual Property Rights or trips, the trips agreement and the reason is that the trips agreement like the usica contains provisions that facilitate the United States leadership in scientific and technological innovation. China is challenging that leadership through predatory practices aimed at our highest value sectors, including our pharmaceutical sector. Plain and simple, china wants our intellectual property. Remarkably, the administration announced without Consulting Congress that it would support a waiver of u. S. Intellectual Property Rights under the trips agreement with respect to vaccines. Moreover, the u. S. Trade representative declined to confirm that she would oppose letting this waiver extend to china. Colleagues, there are vaccines precisely because the innovative u. S. Firms exist because of strong i. P. Protections. The problem with access to vaccines is not intellectual property. The problem is the manufacturing capacity. This amendment im proposing allows the administration to proceed providing it is willing to make the case, including by presenting evidence and respecting congress authority. The outcome is subject to congressional approval just like the original trips agreement. I also demand real consultation with congress. My colleagues amendment provides only that the administration will provide relevant proposals and pertinent documents to Congress Related to the final agreement. There is no reason to grant this leeway to the Administration Given its existing failure to consult with us. My amendment requires the administration to provide the text of any u. S. Proposal to congress five Business Days before it is tabled in a trade negotiation, not after it is agreed to. To amendment a congressionally approved agreement. With respect to that agreement and the other w. T. O. Agreements, weve spoken clearly as a body that the United States can withdraw from these agreements if and only if Congress Passes a resolution to that effect. For example, it requires reports on issues central to whether the administrations decision makes sense and provides for consultation by the administration with the public and congress concerning its proposal. This will facilitate transparency, identify any National Security risks presented by the administrations proposal, and importantly will stop an action that does not further Vaccine Access or present a risk to our National Security. Accordingly, if the administrations proposal is determined by the administrations own agencies not to present a risk to u. S. National security and that a positively facilitates Vaccine Access, the Administration May continue negotiating and seeking an outcome for a waiver. It must not be the case that once Congress Approves a trade agreement, the administration can simply withdraw rights or obligations under a congressionally approved trade agreement or alter its terms however it sees fit yet thats exactly what the administration is seeking to do here. If we were to accept that proposition, what is the point for congress approving any future trade agreement . If the administration can simply alter it without again coming to congress to make that change . This amendment ensures that the administrations proposal will in fact get a vote by applying fasttracklike procedures to its conclusions. It also prohibits our i. P. From going to china or russia. I have only one red line which i suspect all of you share. The Administration May not waive United States i. P. Rights under the trips agreement to china and russia. Congress approved the entry of these two countries into the w. T. O. Precisely because we wanted to hold them accountable to w. T. O. Rules. Russia and china are a threat to American Innovation, and the principle reason why the usic is before us on the floor of the senate today. So why would we then allow the administration to legally bless their malfeasance . If we must stand together and waive the i. P. Rights of americans, the least we can do is insist that china and russia which tout the successes of their own vaccines not be allowed to take hardearned u. S. Technology. This concern is particularly valid since the Chinese Government is actively trying to steal mrna technology and its efforts to develop such technology has led in fact by the arm of the by an arm of the Chinese Military. Usica is a sincere bipartisan effort to promote American Innovation in the face of chinas predations. My amendment complements that effort and must likewise be considered. I encourage all of my democrat and republican colleagues to support it. Thank you, mr. President. A senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from oregon. Mr. Wyden mr. President and colleagues, senator crapo has brought forward an amendment to the competition bill. It deals with the Biden Administrations announcement that it would participate in negotiations on intellectual property and the coronavirus vaccines. Unfortunately, my friends amendment also goes far beyond the current pandemic and adds roadblocks to any improvements to any other trade agreements into the future. So i must oppose senator crapos amendment. Im offering an alternative which the senate will also vote on shortly. The fact is that even though covid is receding in Many American communities, the virus will still be a danger to americans as long as there are outbreaks and mutations around the world. Thats a big reason why the Biden Administration is working overtime to increase vaccine production and distribution as quickly as possible in our country and around the world. Its also why the administration announced its intention to participate in negotiations over the vaccine i. P. Waivers. The u. S. Trade representative will be in charge of our participation in those negotiations. Again unfortunately, the crapo amendment would tie up our u. S. Trade representative in bureaucratic red tape and reporting for many months before they could speak to any of our trading partners about the issue. Behalf tye and the Biden Administration recognize that the trips waiver is not going to end the pandemic overnight. However, the American People and countries around the world cannot afford the delay, the delay that the crapo amendment would cost. The crapo amendment puts the u. S. Trade representative into what amounts to a straitjacket, making it hard if not impossible to negotiate fixes or modifications to any trade agreement for any reason. It would make the process for modifying an agreement more difficult than getting into that agreement in the first place. That is a big roadblock to improvements that could raise standards for workers. Ill close by mentioning i filed an alternative amendment 1975. My amendment guarantees transparency and consultations throughout the negotiations. It makes clear that the United States must promote Global Access to vaccines while safeguarding our i. P. From hostile foreign powers and protecting american innovators. So heres the bottom line. Its not only possible, its absolutely essential for our system to include strong intellectual property protections as well as exceptions to promote the common good at the same time. My amendment strikes the right balance. The crapo amendment just goes too far in the direction of blocking the administration from using all available tools to fight the pandemic and to make improvements to any other trade agreements. For that reason i urge senators to support my amendment 1975. I urge my colleagues to oppose my friends amendment, the crapo amendment, and that will be the next vote. I yield the floor. Mr. Schumer mr. President . The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Schumer i ask unanimous consent that all votes after the first be ten minutes in length, and were going to try to stick to it as best we can. So please, members, were trying to finish. We have six votes. Were trying to get them done. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection, so ordered. Under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the wyden amendment number 1975. Mr. Wyden i yield back. The presiding officer all time is yielded back. The question is now on the amendment. Is there a sufficient second . There appears to be. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote vote the presiding officer on this vote, the yeas are 50, and the nays are 49. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the crapo amendment, number 1565. A senator mr. President, i yield back my time. The presiding officer the senator yields back his time. Senator wyden yields back majority time. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment. Is there a sufficient second . There appears to be. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote vote the presiding officer the yeasia 53, the nays are 46. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. A senator mr. President . The presiding officer under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote in relation to paul amendment number 2003. Mr. Paul mr. President . The presiding officer the senator will be the senate will be in order. The senator from kentucky. Mr. Paul we may never know whether the pandemic areese from the lab arose from the lab in wuhan but we do know that so far no intermediary animal host has been discovered. Thousands of animals at the wet market has been looked at. None of them have carried covid19. Weve tried to infect covid19 into bats. It doesnt grow well in bats. It seems most adapted and suitable for humans. We may not know whether this ever arose out of a wuhan lab, but i think gainoffunction research where we take a deadly virus, sometimes much more deadly than covid, and then we increase its transmissibility to mammals is wrong. In 2014, n. I. H. Stopped all of this research. Im using the same definition to say, any gainoffunction research should not be funded in china with u. S. Taxpayer dollars, and i recommend a yes vote. Thank you. A senator mr. President . I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60vote requirement for this amendment and yield back time. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. All time is yielded back. The question is now on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, nay. It seems as if the ayes have it. The amendment is disagreed to. The amendment is agreed to. Under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the senate will be in order. Two minutes of debate on the ernst amendment 1507. Ms. Ernst mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from iowa. Ms. Ernst mr. President, for years prior to the covid pandemic, u. S. Taxpayer dollars were being funneled into communist chinas staterun Wuhan Institute of virology. After covid appeared in the vicinity of the Wuhan Institute, instead of cooperating with efforts to discover the source of the outbreak, chinese officials instead ordered the destruction of some of the coronavirus samples and blocked access to the lab. China continues to obstruct International Efforts to discover the origins of the covid refusing to allow independent scientists to review the database of coronaviruses that were being studied in the Wuhan Institute. Providing additional u. S. Funds to subsidize any staterun lab in china, especially the Wuhan Institute of virology, goes against the very purpose of the underlying bill, which is to support more research in the u. S. To better compete with china. My amendment would assure that not another dime of taxpayer dollars goes spent to subsidizing communist china. With that, i yield. Ms. Cantwell mr. President, i ask unanimous consent the presiding officer the senate will be in order. The senator from washington. Ms. Cantwell i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60 refuse vote requirement for this amendment and i yield back time. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection, so ordered. All time is yielded back. The question is now on the amendment. All those in favor say aye u. Opposed, nay. The ayes do have it. The amendment is adopted. Under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to consideration of daines amendment number 1787. Mr. Daines mr. President . The presiding officer senator daines. Mr. Daines mr. President, this amendment is called the protecting i. P. Act. It is a bipartisan amendment that will help increase enforcement of the United States and china phaseone trade deal. This put in place important protections for americas intellectual properties, copywrites and more. China has been a notorious and serial abuser of American Intellectual property for decades. Thats why the phaseone deal put in place a number of important safeguards. Unfortunately, china has not lived up to their end of the deal. Its critical we hold china accountable for its commitments. As we debate increasing investment in advanced research, we cannot look the other way and allow china to continue to steal American Intellectual property. Thats why i introduced this bipartisan protecting i. P. Amendment with senator cortez masto to ensure the president and the ustr use all available tools to enforce the phase one agreement. Were in a race against china and must remain globally competitive. Thats why i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense and bipartisan agreement. Ms. Cantwell mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from washington. Ms. Cantwell mr. President, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60vote requirement for this amendment and yield back all time. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. All time is yielded back. The question is now on the amendment. All those in favor say yea. Those opposed, say no. The ayes have t the amendment is adopted. Under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote in relation to lee amendment 1891. Mr. Lee mr. President . The presiding officer will the senate please be in order. Please take your conversations off the floor. The senate will be in order. The senator from utah. Mr. Lee i ask unanimous consent to speak up to it two minutes. The presiding officer without objection. Lee he all human lives from conception to natural birth have innate, immeasurable value. Experiments that use aborted fetal tissue and practices that create and destroy human embryos or human lives in their earliest stages of development flatly deny that truth. Unfortunately, our own tax dollars sometimes incentivize experiments of this very kind and the bill before us provides no exceptions, no protections to prevent it. The endless frontier act includes overreads 80 billion for cure yeas of medical technologies, genomics and Synthetic Biology without any guardrails or protections for the earliest stages of life. Many americans do not want to see their taxpayer dollars used to destroy, experiment on, or unethically alter human life and they shoop shouldnt be forced to do so. Thankfully there are some of these protections in annual appropriations measures that go through the department of health and Human Services and have been there for decades. Because this bill expands research at the n. S. F. , the department of commerce and the office of science and technology, which are funded through a different appropriations bill, through c. J. S. , the h. H. S. Riders do not apply. Thats why im offering this amendment which would simply prohibit any Research Funded through the endless frontier act from using fetal tissue octaned from an abacklogs and from creating, destroying, distinguished carding or putting human embryos at risk. While the n. S. F. Currently has an Agency Policy that bans research in which a human embryo is created or destroyed, this would codify that. We need it to codify that. We need this to be consistent with what we do elsewhere, to protect the sanctionty of human life. Look, human lives at every stage are too precious to tinker with. Our research and our laws should uphold this truth. This amendment would help ensure permanent protections to do precisely that. Ms. Cantwell mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from washington. Mrs. Murray mr. President, this bill is an important opportunity for congress to put partisanship aside and help families in you are a country by in our country by boosting american competitiveness. This means making sure it is led by science not ideology. With this amendment, says loud and year that even during a pandemic, supporters will put ideology ahead of science and ahead of Patients Health and gladly undermine the same type of research that helped develop new therapies for covid19. This is an irresponsible ideological tac on science and medical etch are and it not only undermines Patients Health care, it also undermines the goal of this whole bill which is to boost American Innovation and competitiveness. I urge a no vote. A senator i ask for the yeas and nays. The presiding officer is there a sufficient second . There is. The question is on the amendment. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote vote the presiding officer on this vote, the yeas are 48. The nays are 51. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. A senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from new york. Mrs. Gillibrand mr. President, i rise tonight to once again call for this entire body to have the opportunity to consider the military justice improvement and increasing prevention act. This would ensure that people in the military who have been subjected to Sexual Assault and other serious crimes get the justice that they deserve. I first introduced this legislation in 2013. Since then the committee has had eight years to consider it, to ask questions, to pursue changes, and to implement alternative solutions. And we have. In fact, over the period of 15 years, the committee enacted nearly 250 legislative provisions designed to address the scourge of Sexual Assault in the military. We have modified data reporting requirements. We have added questions to surveys. We have required annual reports a the status of sex offense investigations. Weve required developments of strategies to hold leadership accountable. Weve chartered special panels, commissions, and advisory committees to address this problem, and we have enacted their recommendations. We have made scores of small adjustments, and theyve just not moved the needle. The most recent annual report from the department of defense proves it. Reports of Sexual Assault have increased virtually every single year and remain at record highs while prosecution and conviction rates have declined. The Current System is not working. We need real reform and we have the legislation to do it. In 2014 i asked for a vote on this bill, and it rned earned majority support, 55 votes, but it was filibustered. In 2015 again i earned majority support but it was filibustered. I asked for a vote in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, and i was denied every single time. I am again asking on behalf of Service Members who do so much for this country, who will sacrifice themselves and their lives for this nation, and on behalf of the bipartisan fill bupserproof majority of senators who support this legislation and want to enact this reform and this vote is being denied again. How long must our Service Members wait for real reform. How long must they wait for a criminal Justice System that is worthy of their sacrifice. There is no persuasive argument for the need to allow more time to consider this legislation in committee. The committee has had nearly a decade to consider it. Most members of this body have had years to consider it. And those who have had the least time to consider it, our newest members, have already seen the need for reform. Nine out of ten new senators, republicans and democrats alike, including the two new members of the Armed Services committee have already cosponsored this bill. This bill is now supported by 64 bipartisan senators who deserve to have the opportunity to cast a vote for this important bill. We dont have to take the time for another incompetent mnl step incremental step, it is time to bring this vote to the floor. I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader the senate Armed Services committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 1520 and the senate proceed to its consideration. That there be two hours of debate equally divided in the usual form and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate. The presiding officer is there objection . Mr. Reed mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from rhode island. Mr. Reed for the reasons i articulated last evening, i object. The presiding officer the objection is heard. Mrs. Gillibrand mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from new york. Mrs. Gillibrand i continue to advocate for the ability of this body to vote up or down on this bill. This is an important moment in our nations history. This is a generational change whose time has come. Previously when such important reforms were needed, such as the dont ask, dont tell repeal, they were brought directly to the floor. Its time to bring this to the floor. I yield the floor. Mrs. Gillibrand mr. President, i suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Mr. Lankford mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from oklahoma. Mr. Lankford i ask the quorum call be vitiated. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Lankford mr. President, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. Res. 234 submitted earlier today. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk Senate Resolution 234 recognizing the 100th anniversary of the 1921 tulsa massacre. The presiding officer is there objection to proceeding to the measure . Without objection, the senate will proceed. Mr. Lankford i know of no further debate on the measure. The presiding officer is there further debate . Hearing none, the question is on the adoption of the resolution. All those in favor will say aye. Opposed nay. The ayes appear to have it. The resolution is agreed to. Mr. Lankford mr. President, i ask unanimous consent the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Inhofe mr. President, next week is a somber anniversary. Its 100 years since the tulsa massacre. Before 1921, Greenwood District, also known as the black wall street, was a vibrant, thriving, prosperous black community. But then the evening of may 31 into the Early Morning of june 1, 1921, there was a horrific massacre where hundreds of black tulsans were murdered and thousands were made homeless overnight. It was awful. But as terrible as it was, thats why it is important we come together to honor the victims and their families and share their stories today and with future generations. Im honored to cosponsor senator lankfords resolution today to remember this anniversary. Together we can all work to lift up the story of black wall street and use this anniversary to remember, reflect, and work, as we do every day, towards reconciliation. I yield the floor. Mr. Lankford mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from oklahoma. Mr. Lankford mr. President, senator inhofe and i and this body has just passed by voice vote a resolution recognizing the 100th anniversary of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. It is a significant recognition to not only recognize what happened in 1921 but also to recognize the black towns that still remain in oklahoma. It is an interesting history we have in oklahoma and i encourage folks to be able to find out more about us a as state. In the late 1800s, early 1900s, black individuals and families from all over the south were fleeing away from where they were being oppressed and they were coming to oklahoma, setting up vibrant communities, and over 50 allblack towns rose up in oklahoma. In fact, there was some dialogue in pentagon early 1900s about possibly having oklahoma be an allblack state even. These black communities were rising up around our state, looking for opportunities, freedom, a chance for a better life. 13 of those 50 towns still remain today as communities. Many of the individuals in these towns are friends and people that i know, and senator inhofe and i have the honor of being able to represent in this great body. I think about dr. Donny nero, dr. Donny nero sr. , i should say. He is the one who helped found and put all this together. He is an attitude in wonderful clearview, oklahoma, he says one of the most greatest motivational concepts accessible to mankind is recognition. He says recognition is about remembrance and acknowledgment. Were taking a moment has a senate today to be able to acknowledge these 13 black towns that still remain in oklahoma and to be able to look at some of the history of what happened during that time period. So let me walk through this somewhat. Tallahassee was founded in 1883, regarded as one of the oldest surviving historically black towns in indian territory. Langston was founded in 1890, named after john mercer langston, a u. S. Representative from virginia. Seven years lakers the Oklahoma Territorial Legislature established the colored agricultural and normal university, which would later be called Langston University. This historically black college and university has grown from 41 students in 1897 to over 3,000 students today. Prominent oklahomans such as melvin tulsan, clara looper, frederick moon, marquise hanes, isaac w. Young, inland page, zell la black patterson, all resided in the town of langston or called Langston University home. Tatums was named after two brothers. They found prosperity in 1929 when oil wells were drilled in tatums. Norman studios even filmed a movie there using the brothers in their film. Another town was founded on land. They changed their name to taft to honor the thensecretary of war William Howard taft. Grayson, a bustling, five general stores, two drugstores and a physician soon as it was founded in 1902. It was originally known as wildcat. Changed in 1909 to honor the creek chief george w. Grayson. Bowlie, named half j. B. Bowlie, a Railroad Official of the western railway. Grew to be the largest African American town in oklahoma. Only five years after being founded, booker t. Washington visited the town and wrote about the prosperity heed witnessed. Boasting the first flakowned bank it was owned by d. J. Turner and received a National Charter and rose to be one of the largest and wealthiest, exclusively black communities. Today bowlie still hosts the nations oldest annual black rodeo. Rintysville, owned by William Rentie and phoebe mcintosh. John hope franklin, scholar of African American history, promoted dialogue that reshaped americas views on Race Relations, was born there in 1915. Franklins later moved to tulsa where John Hope Franklin graduated from booker t. Washington. He survived the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre and went on to become one of the most decorated historians. He inspired the John Hope Franklin center for reconciliation, reconciliation park in tulsa, and an Elementary School in north tulsa. Rintysville attracts all the blues artists and folks who come in. Clear view, a town ive already mentioned, was founded along the tracks of the railroad, wildly known for its Baseball Team but is wildly known for the hall of fame for black educators. It is a place i would encourage people to stop in and to be able to see. It is an annual tradition where individuals from around the state will ride in to be able to recognize bracketters to be recognized that year in the hall of fame ceremony led by dr. Nero sr. Brooksville, originally named soule. Renamed after a. R. Brooks. Read burger founded in 1907 along the missouri kansas railroad. E. L. Barber was one of the first justices of the peace and an early mayor. Before redbird became a town, barber organized the First Baptist church in 1889 which grew to be the Largest Church in redbird. Summit founded in 1910 along the railway. Vernon founded in 1911 on tankerred ranch, home to ella woods, the first postmaster and louise wesley, who established the first school and church. Lima, founded in 1913 along the chicago rock island and pacific railroad. The mt. Zion Methodist Church was built there and still stands to this day. And of course the most famous and prosperous of all of the black communities was greenwood. Greenwood district became a Thriving Community where black business owners, schools, and churches flourished. By the late 19 10s. It was the wealthiest black community in all of the United States. The community earned the name black wall street from the famed African American author and educator ive already spoken of, booker t. Washington. The history of these historically black towns is interwoven into the history of oklahoma and the history of the United States. The residents of these towns have achieved Great Success and faced tremendous challenges. Stories of these black towns and communities in oklahoma are also inexstringably linked to the events of may 30 through june 1 of 1921. When the Greenwood District of north tulsa burst into flames. An important part of history is learning from the past. It is not looking at an incident in isolation. Its what came before and after. This weekend, the nation will pause and reflect on the 100th anniversary of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, the worst race massacre in the history of the United States. But we cant look at greenwood as if it was a single weekend. It was a prosperous, thriving black community. And it still has a history to be able to share in our future. Many of you have heard me share the story on the floor of the senate before. For the past several years ive talked about the race massacre here, in committee meetings, and in conversations around this body. Theres the significance of the 100th anniversary not just for tulsa and my state but for the rest of the nation as well. So let me recount this again. On may 30, 1921, a young black man named dick roland entered the drexel building to use the only bathroom in the area that was available for black people to be able to use in downtournesol at that. An incident occurred in the elevator between dick and sarah page, the elevator operator and sarah page screamed. We really dont know what happened. But as the doors opened, she screamed. The police did an investigation and the next day they went to dick roland and they detained him before moving him to the tulsa courthouse to be able to be confined. On may 31, 1921, the tulsa tribune released a sensationalist story claiming that a young black man had attacked a white girl in an elevator in the drexel building. That story and a long, simmering tensions in the city led to a large group of white individuals surrounding the courthouse to demand that dick roland be released so he could be lynched. A group of black men traveled to the courthouse to help defend him from the angry mob, many veterans from world war i who had served honorably there. After a scuffle at the downtown courthouse, white rioters pursued the men back to the Greenwood District and the violence escalated dramatically. Literally as the violence increased, white rioters that really became a mob were deputized to be able to go down and handle the issues in greenwood. They gathered firearms as they ran the few blocks from Central Downtown tulsa into greenwood just north of tulsa. Houses and businesses were burned and looted throughout the Greenwood District and the attacks lasted well into the night and well into the next day. Before being quelled by the Oklahoma City National Guard. In less than 24 hours, 35 city blocks were destroyed by fires, 6,000 African American individuals were detained, up to 300 lives were lost. Out of the 23 churches that were located in the greenwood area prior to the 1921 massacre, only 13 of the churches survived and only three churches were able to be rebuilt after being destroyed. Paradise baptist church, mt. Die john and vernon a. M. E. Church. It was a horrific day. And 100 years later, the residents and businesses in the Greenwood District still carry on the legacy of resilience and determination. For the past few years ive been working to tell the story. For some, even some oklahomans, its a story that they had not heard before. Five years ago i started telling the story in washington, d. C. , and when i told it, hardly anyone knew about it. Now everyone i speak to is familiar with the story. Weve pulled this story out of the dark pages of history and lifted it up for our nation to be able to see and our nation is looking at it. In oklahoma, many people know about that terrible twoday period when rioters set a community on fire and set our nation back. But i also tell people, you cant understand tulsa and oklahoma unless you understand may 31 and june 1 of 1921. So i worked to develop a curriculum to ensure future generations of oklahomans learn the accurate, historical events of 1921. Before we started working on the curriculum, our schools had a mandate to teach the 1921 massacre, but there were no materials to actually use to teach that accurate history. There were no visuals. Theres no curriculum. Know there are. Now there are. Weve pulled all those altogether and made that resource free to every educators in oklahoma and every educator in america that wants to teach that history accurately. During the same time period five or six years ago, i started working on something called solution sundays. Because when i started speaking about six years ago now to individuals all around tulsa understand at state about the tulsa race mass carry, i usually started the conversation the same way may the 31 and june the 1st of 2021, i would say about six years ago, the entire country is going to pause. I dont know how long. They may pause for a minute, for an hour, they may pause for a day or for a weekend. But the entire country will pause and will look at tulsa and will look at oklahoma and will ask themselves one question what has changed in america in Race Relations in the last 100 years . I said six years ago thats a fair question for someone to ask. We better be able to answer it when may 31 of 2021 comes. Little did i know six years ago when i started asking that question and continued to ask that question when it was five years, four years, three years, two years, and next year, little did i know the events dealing with race that would happen in the last 12 months. In the awakening the nation really has had to what is still left undone in the issue of race in america. I started something about six years ago, the same time i started asking about what would we say. I started challenging families with something i called solution sundays. Its a simple idea, quite frankly. I would just ask people that i would encounter of all races, of all backgrounds a simple question has your family ever invited a family of another race to your home for dinner . I thought it was simple. Until when i have asked people, i would get the same answer back. I would ask people has your family ever invited a family of another race to your home for dinner . The most common answer i got back was i have friends of another race. To which i would always smile and say thats not what i asked. I asked has your family ever invited a family of another race to your home for dinner. What i found in my state was most individuals of every race all answered it the same way. Thats never happened in my house. So i would ask them a simple question. A National Conversation about race is not something that happens on tv. A National Conversation on race happens at our dinner tables, with our families. We should not expect that the nation will speak on race when our families are not, and the best way for our families and to show our kids that this is normal conversation is to have a family over of another race to sit around the table. What i like to say to people is well never get all the issues of race on the table until we get our feet under the same table and just talk and just get to know each other as friends. The nation will not shift on Race Relations until each of our families shift on Race Relations. I continue to be able to challenge this simple concept of solution sundays. By the way, if you want to pick a different day, thats fine with me, but sunday seemed to be a pretty good day just to invite someone over for dinner or for lunch. Just a few days, people from all over the country will fly into tulsa, some of them for the first time. Theyre going to participate in events to commemorate the 100th anniversary. Its my hope that what they see will be a model of reconciliation for the rest of the country, but after the anniversary passes, and the crowds leave and the National Folks will go on to doing something else, well still be around. Tulsa and all of oklahoma will still need to finish the work that has begun on race. Ill still be around north tulsa. Ive got lots of friends there. And i know there will be an ongoing dialogue still about reconciliation because the big event that the whole world turns the Television Cameras on doesnt solve the issues of race. We saw that as individuals and as a family. See, i believe, like many of you, that i have a calling towards reconciliation. As a follower of jesus, as i read through the new testament, i bump into passages like second corinthians chapter 5 where paul wrote to us and said we have the ministry and the message of reconciliation. Now, i understand paul first meant that was an ability to be able to come to god and be reconciled to god, and i do believe firmly that every individual can be reconciled with god, and im glad to share that message and ministry. But i also believe its a challenge to each of us to work towards reconciliation where relationships are broken, we are the reconcilers, and we have a ministry and a message of reconciliation. My friend, robert turner, whos the pastor of vernon a. M. E. Church in the heart of greenwood, he and i were visiting last week on the phone, talking through the things coming up in the days ahead, and as we were just chitchatting with my friend, he said ive got to tell you about my sermon that i preached a couple of weeks ago. So i said tell me all about it. He said, you know, pastor turner said i preached on matthew the Tax Collector, also called levi. And we spent some time talking about that. He said what i told my congregation was jesus called matthew the Tax Collector to be one of his disciples, but he also called simon the zealot to be one of his disciples. Now, you may not know, but the Tax Collectors were loyal to the romance. They were jews that were loyal to the roman authority, and the zealots were jews that were adamantly opposed to the roman authority, so literally jesus grabbed two people from opposite political perspectives, opposite if i can say it political parties, and he grabbed both of them and said i want you to be my disciple. Pastor turner said theres a lot that we can learn from jesus. Beginning with jesus said everyones welcome from every political perspective to come and follow him. Pastor turner, youre spot on. My friend, keep preaching it. But excuse me for noticing jesus is the one who set the example, and he called all of us to be able to follow it. Now, i have to tell you pastor turner and i dont agree on everything. We may not even vote alike, although honestly i have never asked him how he votes, but he is my friend, and he is my partner in reconciliation. For six years, i have asked people across oklahoma when may 31 comes and the nation stops and asks what has changed in the last 100 years, we should be prepared to answer. That weekend is here, and each of us should be able to answer that for our lives and for our families. Lets finish the work. Were not done on racial reconciliation. Lets finish the work, starting with our own families, our own communities, and our own lives. God help us to carry on the ministry and the message of reconciliation. With that, i yield the floor. Mr. Whitehouse madam president. The presiding officer the senator from rhode island. Mr. Whitehouse before i begin, may i just say a word of thanks to my two colleagues from oklahoma for this moment that weve had on the senate floor. I was privileged to be waiting to give my remarks to hear them speak. I thought this was a wonderful moment. We have our challenges around here. If we had more moments like this, we would get through our challenges better, and i congratulate and thank both of my colleagues. Madam president , there is a scheme afoot, a scheme i will be talking about in weeks ahead, a longrunning, rightwing scheme to capture the Supreme Court. Special interests are behind the scheme. They school it through dark money, hundreds of millions of dollars in anonymous hidden spending. We will dwell in later speeches on how the scheme operates. This first speech seeks its origins. The scheme is secret, and because of its secrecy, its hard to know exactly where the story should begin. But one place you could begin is with a Corporate Lawyer, the virginian louis powell. An authorized biography of louis powell by his fellow virginian, renowned u. V. A. Law Professor John jeffries reveals powell to be a tough and incisive lawyer, willing and able to make sharp, even harsh decisions, but a man of courtly and decent manners, well settled in the white male social and corporate elite of richmond, virginia. There he developed his legal and Business Career through the 1950s and 1960s. A successful Corporate Law practice often entailed joining corporate boards. Richmond was a home to big tobacco and powells legal career led him on to richmonds tobacco and other corporate boards. Richmond was virginias sibling rival to charlottesville which could boast of Thomas Jeffersons nearby monticello, the university of virginia and all the cultural vibrancy bubbling around that great university. Richmond, richmond was the working sibling, posting the States Capital and its political offices and serving as its corporate center. Powell was an ambitious richmond Corporate Lawyer, and the turbulence of the 1950s was broadly distressing to americas corporate elite. The Civil Rights Movement disrupted jim crow across the south. Drawing out and exposing to the nation the racist violence that had long enforced the social and legal norm of segregation and upsetting americas allwhite corporate suites and board rooms. Antiwar protesters derided dow chemical companys manufacture of napalm and scorned the entire military industrial complex. Womens rights protesters challenged allmale Corporate Management structures. The Environmental Movement protested chemical leaks, toxic products, and the poisons belching from corporate smokestacks. Public Health Groups began linking the Tobacco Industry to deadly illnesses. And lead paint companies to brain damage in children. Ralph nader criticized americas Car Companies for making automobiles that were unsafe at any speed and causing carnage on americas highways. Americas anxious corporate elite saw Congress Respond with new and unwelcome laws and saw courts respond with big and unwelcome verdicts. Something had to be done. Powells prominence in virginias civic, legal, social, and corporate circles had brought him attention in washington, d. C. And a new client of his, the washington, d. C. Based u. S. Chamber of commerce, asked powell for his help. The chamber commissioned from powell a secret report, a Strategic Plan for reasserting Corporate Authority over the political arena. A secret powell report titled attack on American Free enterprise system was telling. It was telling first for the apocalyptic certainty of its tone. Powells opening sentence was no thoughtful person can question that the american system is under broad attack. By that, he meant the American Economic system, but that assertion was footnoted with the parallel assertion that and im quoting him again the american political system of democracy under the rule of law is also under attack. This was, powell asserted, quite new in american history. Business and the enterprise system are in deep trouble, he wrote, and the hour is late. The secret powell report was an alarm. The report is populated with liberal boogeyman, the bombastic lawyer william constler, the popular author charles rake, the consumer advocate ralph nader whom powell said there should be and im quoting here no mess taition to attack. Against them powell set establishment defenders like columnist stewart olsic and conservative economist milton friedman. Powell quote the concerns of Corporate America as concerns of individual freedom, a rhetorical framework for corporate political power that persists to this day. The battle lines were drawn. Indeed the language in the powell report is the language of battle. Attack, frontal assault, rifle shots, warfare. The recommendations are to end compromise and appeasement, his words, compromise and appeasement. To understand that, as he said, the ultimate issue may be survival and he underlined the word survival in his report. And to call for the wisdom, ingenuity, and resources of American Business to be marshaled against those who would destroy it. Well, for this you had to have a plan and the powell plan was to go big. Heres what he said. Strength lies in organization, in careful longrange planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations. End quote. Powell recommended a propaganda effort staffed with scholars and speakers, a propaganda effort to which American Business should devote 10 of its total advertising budget, including an effort to review and critique textbooks, especially in economics, political science, and sociology. National Television Networks should be monitored in the same way that textbooks should be kept under constant surve surveillance, he said. Corporate america should aggressively insist on the right to be heard on equal time and Corporate America should be ready to deploy im quoting him here whatever degree of pressure publicly and privately may be necessary. End quote. This would be a long road, powell warned, and not for the fainthearted. In his section entitled the neglected political arena, powell recommended using political influence to stem the stampedes by politicians to support any legislation related to consumerism or to the environment and, yes, powell put the word environment in derogatory quote marks in the original. Political power, powell wrote, is necessary. It must be assiduously cultivated, and when necessary must be used aggressively and with determination. He concluded that it is essential to be far more aggressive than in the past with no hesitation to attack. Not the slightest hesitation to press vigorously in all political arenas and no reluctance to penalize politically those who oppose this corporate effort. In a nutshell, no holds barred. And then came then came the section of the secret report that may have launched the scheme to capture the court. Its called neglected opportunity in the courts. This section focused on what powell called exploiting judicial action. He called it an area of vast opportunity. He wrote, under our constitutional system, especially with an activist minded Supreme Court ill intervene to say, of course, we have today as a result of the scheme the most activist minded Supreme Court in american history. But back to his quote. Especially with an acti activistminded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic, and political change. Powell urged that the chamber of commerce become the voice of American Business in the courts with a highly competent staff of lawyers if busi business is wilg to provide the funds. He concludes, the opportunity merits the necessary effort. The secret report may well have been the singlemost consequential piece of writing that lewis powell ever did in a long career of consequential writing. The tone and content of the report actually explain a lot of decisions in his future career. Yet this secret report received no attention, not even a passing mention in professor jeffries detailed, authoritative, and authorized powell biography. And the secret chamber report was not disclosed to the United States senate. In Senate Confirmation proceedings when shortly after delivering his secret report to the u. S. Chamber of commerce, lewis powell was nominated to the United States Supreme Court by president richard nixon. The secret report was dated august 23, 1971. Two months later on october 22, nixon nominated powell to the Supreme Court. Lewis powell was sworn in as an associate justice of the Supreme Court on january 7, 1972, less than six months after this secret report was delivered to the chamber. To be continued. I yield the floor. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. The presiding officer the senator from ohio. Mr. Portman madam president , are we in a quorum call . The presiding officer yes, we are in a quorum call port port i ask unanimous consent mr. Portman i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Johnson madam president , i rise today in strong support of the safeguarding American Innovation act. This is legislation that has been included in the substitute amendment to the bill that were working on this week called the endless frontiers act, or as its now been called, the u. S. Innovation and competition act. If our goal is to encourage more competition and innovation, weve got to not only invest in research and education, weve got to be sure that were keeping our investments in research and intellectual property from being taken by our competitors and used against us. Thats what this legislation does. By the way, thats just common sense, or so you would think. But its not what the we found during a bipartisan investigation of the permanent subcommittee on investigations. Instead, during a yearlong inquiry, reuncovered that over the past couple of decades, china has taken advantage of a lax u. S. Approach to safeguarding our taxpayerfunded innovation in the our College Campuses and research labs. Nor was Law Enforcement, principally the f. B. I. , doing anything significant to combat this threat. In our hearing on the report about 18 months arc the f. B. I. Admitted in sworn testimony that theyd been asleep at the switch essentially. Our p. S. I. Investigation xi tailed the theft of u. S. Research by way of their so had ofcalled talent program. China uses these plans to systematically find Promising Researchers and Promising Research that china is interested in and they recruit those researchers. These programs have not been subtle. The thousand towns plan is perhaps the best understood of these programs, although there are actually a couple hundred of them. Our p. S. I. Investigation documented how the thousands talents plan was used to target and steal taxpayerfunded research and i. P. For at least two decades in this country and much of that research and innovation was taken from our labs to china and went directly into fueling the rise of the chinese economy and the Chinese Military. Well, this is what china has done and continues to do. This is really about us. Weve got to get our own house in order. Specifically, we found that the Chinese Government has targeted promising u. S. Based research and researchers. Often this research is funded by u. S. Taxpayers. We spend about 150 billion a year on taxpayerfunded research at places like the National Institutes of health, the National Science foundation and department of energy for basic science research. And with this legislation, were talking about tonight on the floor, the endless frontiers act, were talking about a huge increase in the amount of federal spending for this kind of research. The annual 150 billion that has gone out has been a good investment of taxpayer dollars, i believe. Why . It has led to some amazings things. Mr. Portman cures for everything, technologies that support our defense base to Manufacturing Technology that made us more efficient as a country. But its not good if the u. S. Taxpayer is paying thor this Good Research and then china is taking it to fuel their own economic and military rise. China has not just stolen some of this Research Fund by u. S. Taxpayers. China has actually paid these grant recipients to take their research over to china at chinese universities, again universities affiliated with the Chinese Communist party. Theyve been very clever about it. They want to be sure that china is a stronger competitor against us. They take the research delivered from the United States to what is referred to shadow labs in china where they replicate the research. Rather than pointing the finger at china, we ought to be looking at our own government and our own institutions and doing a better job with the things we can control. Again, lets get our own house in order. Weve made some progress in doing that. Following our november 2019p. H. S. I. Investigation i talked follow being our november 2019 p. S. I. Investigation, john deavors announced that more than 1,000 researchers affiliated with chinas military left the United States following a crackdown on recipients of taxpayerfunded federal grants concealing their affiliation with chinas thousand talents program. 1,000 researchers. Left the United States. That news follows multiple guilty pleas and a strong of arrests of academics aated with universities. While accepting american taxpayer funds and taking research to china 9, after two decades of allowing this activity to go on over the past 18 months weve finally begun to crack down. In my own state of ohio, in my home state there have been some researchers arrested. As our investigation found and Law Enforcement told us, the federal government is limited in the actions they can take under concurrent current law. It is our responsibility here in congress to change that. All of the arrests in connection with the thousand talents plan have been related to peripheral plans not the core conflict of commitment, the conflict of interest, the taking of american taxpayerpaid research and also taking money from china. Why . Because its not currently a crime to knowingly hide foreign Research Funding on a federal grant apolitician indication as an example. If you are performing Research Funded by the u. S. Taxpayer and also being paid by china, doing the same research, there is no law stating you have to disclose that research from china. Thats just wrong. Since our report, the National Institutes of health has started to require that information be disclosed. The n. I. H. Is alone in requiring that. But even there, theres still no law requiring disclosure. So the arrests made since our p. S. I. Report have not been about that core issue of researching researchers hiding foreign funding from china and stealing our research. So we need to change the laws so we can give our Law Enforcement community the tools they need to do the job that all of us expected was being done. Safeguarding American Innovation act goes directly to the root of this problem and makes it punishable by law to knowingly fail to disclose foreign funding on grant applications. Its really about transparency, which is a core tenant of the u. S. Research tenet of the research enterprise. It requires the office of management and budget, o. M. B. , and the executive branch to streamline and coordinate grant making between the federal agencies so theres more continuity, accountability, and coordination when is it comes to tracking the billions of dollars of taxpayerfunded grant money. Again, the underlying legislation here on the Chamber Tonight is about more money going into research. Lets be sure there is transparency, and we know how it is being distributed. We found in our investigation that this kind of coordination and transparency was sorely lacking and long overdue. Our legislation also allows the department of state to deny visas to foreign researchers coming to the United States who they know are going to exploit our openness, the openness of our research enterprise, acquire sensitive and emerging technologies against the National Security interests of the United States and to benefit an adversarial foreign government. This may surprise you, but the state department cant do that now. Its a loophole in the law. In finalizing our language for the substitute, we work very closely with Career State Department employee who are desperate to get this authority to keep, say, members from the Peoples Liberation army who are definitely connected with the Chinese Military from coming over here and attending conferences where sensitive export control technology is being talked about and distributed. Our bill also requires foreign institutions and universities to tell the state department whether a foreign researcher will have access to exportcontrolled technologies. It also demonstrates to the state department that they have a plan. Thats really important. It seems like basic information the state department would get here would have been provided all along. But it hasnt been. Providing this information as part of the visa process should also streamline the process for the state department and for these Research Institutions. I think its good for both to make sure that this is clear and we know what the rules are. We also require increased transparency in reporting foreign governments and contracts at our colleges and our unfortunate universities. Those schools are now going to need to report any foreign gift or contract worth 50,000 or more. The current threshold is 250,000. More transparency is a good thing. We also empower the department of education to work with these universities and Research Institutions to ensure that this can be complied with in a way that doesnt create undue red tape and expenditures. Thats not the idea. The idea is to have transparency but something efficient. We also allow the department of education for the first time to find universities that repeatedly fail to disclose these gifts. We actually found that about 60 of universities 70 of universities werent following the current law partly because there was no fine. There was really no accountability. All of the changes that ive outlined are necessary to help keep america on the cutting edge. In order to be globally competitive, we have to be more effective at pushing back against the specific threat from china and from other nations, like russia, iran, and north korea looking to steal our research and our intellectual property. Until we start to clean up our own house and take a firmer stance against foreign influences here in this country trying to take other research, were going to keep losing the innovations that we create here and well be less competitive. Thats why safeguarding American Innovation act is so important to be included in this bill. Ill finish by noting that this has been truly a nonpartisan effort, not just bipartisan but nonpartisan from the start. We wanted to ensure that a thoughtful, smart, and effective way we would respond to the very real threat that we identified from china and other foreign adversaries. I want to commend my partner in our p. S. I. Investigation and cosponsor of our legislation, senator tom carper. I also want to thank the presiding officer tonight for her role in this, for her contributions and her support. I also want to say that i appreciate senator peters and schumer and their staff foreworking with us to finalize the language as well as the state department and other officials from the Trump Administration and the Biden Administration who provided important assistance. Safeguarding American Innovation is always a good idea, but its particularly important in had the context of the legislation before us. It provides exceptionally large amounts of federal money for research to make us more competitive. I support that research. But i dont want the taxpayer funds to go in the front door and then to have the research go otothe back door to china or other adversaries. Thats not what this should be is about. Thanks to this being included in this law, i feel confident it will not be. I yield back my time. Mr. Schumer madam president . The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Schumer madam president , in a moment i will file cloture on both the substitute amendment of the competition bill and on the motion to proceed to the housepassed legislation to create an independent commission to investigate and report on the attack of january 6 setting up a potential vote this week. On the competition bill, this legislation is the product of at least half a dozen Senate Committees working for months, months in a bipartisan way. That means that every Single Member of the senate has had their fingerprints on it in one manner or another. The senate has been making great progress so far this week. To borrow an expression that might appeal to my colleague and partner from indiana senator young, we are approaching the final straightaway of the race. We have completed a very efficient series of votes on six amendments this afternoon, five of which were sponsored by republicans. Thats in addition to four amendment votes we already held and literally dozens, dozens of bipartisan amendments that were added to the bill before it even reached the floor. This is regular order in action. Members on both sides have clamored that we bring bills to the floor, debate them, and ask for amendments. That is what is happening here. This is a bipartisan bill that came out of committees with overwhelming votes, 211 in foreign relations, 224 in commerce with a lot of bipartisan input in both committees and throughout, and now were debating it on the floor. I believe the depth of bipartisanship on this bill reveals two things. One, just how much of a hunger the depth of bipartisanship on this bill reveals how much of a hunger there is on both sides of the aisle to tackle the issue of American Leadership in the 21st century. And it also shows a hunger to work in a bipartisan way. And we hope that our colleagues will understand that as we seek now to invoke cloture on the bill after we do several more amendments. With the finish line in sight, we need to continue working together to see this bill through. As i said, well consider a few more amendments tomorrow and thursday, including a managers amendment before final passage. If both sides continue to work in good faith to schedule amendment votes which has been the hallmark so far, there is no reason we cant finish the competition bill by the end of the week. And we will look for a signal from our republican friends that when we cooperate, we will move forward and not move to block or delay unnecessarily. Now, we will also this bill, again, i cannot say how important it is to the future of america. Investing in science and innovation has been a hallmark of why this country has led the world in economic growth, in goodpaying jobs, in creating a brighter, sunnier, happier america. Our failure to invest could lead to a real decline, a cloudiness over america and its future. We have to move forward. And thats why this bill has gotten such great support. This is not a minor bill. Even though theres not partisan fighting didnt mean its not an important bill. Well look back in history and say this does when america got a grip on itself and moved forward after several years of languishing. At best. Now, im also going to move to file cloture on the motion to proceed to the housepassed legislation to create an independent commission to investigate and report on the attack of january 6 setting up a potential vote this week. We all know the commission is an urgent, necessary idea to safeguard our democracy. What happened on january 6 was a travesty, travesty. It risked america in ways we havent seen in decades, maybe even our history a altogether. In the wake ever january 6, unfortunately, too many republicans in both chambers have been trying to rewrite history and sweep the despicable attack on our democracy under the rug. If people believe the big lie, if they believe that this election was not on the level spread by the big lie of donald trump and his legionions in the press, our democracy erodes at the core of this democracy is a belief that we vote, the process is fair, and then whoever is fairly elected, we respect as our leader. That has not happened for the first time in a long time. I so respect our two republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle who will say they will vote for this proposal. I hope many more will. We have to get it passed. Each member of the senate is going to have to stand up and decide. Are you on the side of truth and accountability or are you on the side of donald trump and the big lie . We cannot let this lie to fester. We must get at the truth. We must restore faith in this grand, wonderful, beautiful, evolving experiment, the greatest democracy that has ever been seen on earth. We cant let that go away. And by sweeping all this under the rug, by having so many people believe the lies, we could see the sun begin to set on america. I hope that doesnt happen. I pray that doesnt happen. I dont believe it will happen because i believe we will rise to the occasion and get at the truth. Now, madam president , i ask unanimous consent that when the Senate Resumes consideration of s. Is it 60 on wednesday, may 26, the following amendments be called up and reported by number durbin 2014, kennedy 1710, sullivan 1911. Further, that at 12 00 noon tomorrow, wednesday, may 26, the senate vote in relation to the sullivan amendment and at 2 30 in relation to the durbin and kennedy amendments with no amendments in order to these amendments prior to a vote in relation to the amendments. With 60 affirmative votes required for the adoption with the exception of the sullivan amendment and two inins of debate two minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Schumer i send a cloture motion to the desk, madam president. The presiding officer the clerk will report the motion. The clerk cloture motion we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on schumer substitute amendment number 1502 to calendar number 58, s. 1260, a bill to establish a new directate for technology and so forth and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. Mr. Schumer i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Schumer i send a cloture motion to the desk. The presiding officer the clerk will report the motion. The clerk cloture motion we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on calendar number 58, s. 1260, a bill to establish a new directorate for technology and innovation and so forth and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators as follows mr. Schumer i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Schumer i move to proceed, madam president , to h. R. 3233. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk motion to proceed to calendar number 60, h. R. 3233, an act to establish the National Commission to investigate the january 6 attack on the United States capitol complex and for other purposes. Mr. Schumer i send a cloture motion to the desk. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk cloture motion we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 60, h. R. 3233, an act to establish the National Commission to investigate the january 6 attack on the United States capitol complex and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators as follows mr. Schumer i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Schumer madam president , i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 111. The presiding officer question is on the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes appear to have it. The motion is agreed to. The clerk will report the nomination. The clerk nomination, United States Postal Service, Anton George Hajjar of maryland to be a governor. Mr. Schumer i send a cloture motion to the desks. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk cloture motion we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on on the nomination of sensitive compartmented information execue calendar number 111, Anton George Hajjar of maryland to be a governor of the United States Postal Service senator a term expiring december 8, 2032, signed by 17 senators as follows mr. Schumer i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Schumer i move to proceed to legislative session. The presiding officer question is on the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes appear to have it. Motion is agreed to. Mr. Schumer madam president , move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 134. The presiding officer the question is on the motion. All those in favor, say aye. All opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it. The motion is agreed to. The clerk will report the nomination. The clerk nomination, executive office of the president. Eric s. Lander of massachusetts to be director of the office of science and tegnology policy. Technology policy. Mr. Schumer i send a cloture motion to the desk. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk cloture motion we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 134, eric s. Lander of massachusetts to be director of the office of science and technology policy. Signed by 17 senators as follows mr. Schumer i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Schumer madam president , i ask unanimous consent the senate resume legislative session. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Schumer i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, tuesday, may 25, be waived. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Schumer notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the filing deadline for firstdegree amendments to s. 1260 be at 2 30 p. M. On wednesday, may 26. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Schumer i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in aered pooh of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Schumer i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of Senate Resolution 235 submitted i recall letter earlier today. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk designating may 15, 23021 as national m. P. S. Awareness today. Day. The presiding officer without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. Mr. Schumer i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to. And the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Schumer madam president , i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 236 submitted earlier today. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk s. Res. 236, resolution to authorize testimony, documents, and representation in United States v. Warnick. The presiding officer without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. Mr. Schumer i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Schumer and finally, madam president , i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it ajourney until 10 30 a. M. Wednesday, may 26. Following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. Further, upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate resume consideration of calendar 58, s. 1260, at provided under the previous order. Finally, the Senate Recess following the vote on the sullivan amendment until 2 15 p. M. The presiding officer without objection. Surely schumer if there is to further business to come before the senate i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. The presiding officer the the presiding officer the u. S. Senate gambling out here, lawmakers confirmed Kristin Clark to be assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division. They proved to have the medicare and Medicaid Services. Senators continued work on science and Technology Bill which they could finish this. Follow live coverage here on cspan2. Cspan, unfiltered view of government. Funded by these Television Companies and more including nipsco. A Public Service along with other Television Providers give you a front row seat to democracy