[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 25, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3394-S3401]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                    Nomination of Kristen M. Clarke

  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, today the Senate will vote on Kristen 
Clarke's nomination to head the Department of Justice's Civil Rights 
Division--one of the most powerful positions at the Department of 
Justice. I will, of course, oppose her nomination.
  We get a lot of partisan nominees around here. So that is not very 
surprising. But Ms. Clarke isn't just partisan. She is extremely 
partisan. She called Senator Murkowski ``shameful.'' She accused 
Senator Manchin of being disingenuous. And she casually slandered 200--
200--sitting, Senate-confirmed judges as ``white male extremists.'' If 
confirmed for this position, she will be entrusted with representing 
the U.S. Government in front of those very judges--not exactly a 
credible advocate for our people, if you ask me.
  Ms. Clarke's radicalism doesn't stop with ad hominem insults. It 
thoroughly infects her professional judgment as well. Ms. Clarke has 
consistently demonstrated that she is 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 of 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 falsehoods like that one, riots engulfed the city of 
Kenosha, WI.
  She also claimed that Officer Darren Wilson, who shot and killed 
Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, 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 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. Clarke's 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. Gupta's 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. That is 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 firm and, until very recently, a vocal 
supporter 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: ``Must invest less in police'' three times in the text of that 
article. She also wrote: ``I advocate for defunding policing 
operations.''

[[Page S3395]]

  I don't know. Call me naive. Call me simple. When you write an 
article entitled ``Defund the Police'' and when you say, ``[W]e must 
invest less in the police'' and ``I advocate for defunding policing 
options,'' 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--that she 
supported defunding the police. She claimed that when she wrote that 
``we should defund 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 can't 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 shouldn't be surprising. After all, her article title 
was ``I prosecuted police killings. Defund the Police--but be 
Strategic.'' Apparently, the strategy is lying, because that is what we 
saw at our committee.
  We said: Ms. Clarke, the title of your article is ``Defund the 
Police.''
  Like, I didn't choose the title.
  Ms. Clarke, you wrote three times in the story ``defund the police.''
  She is like: I don't support defunding the police.
  But, Ms. Clarke, you wrote here, as well, that we should invest less 
in the police.
  She is like: No, I don't think we should invest less; we should 
invest more.
  The old argument: It is not my dog. It didn't bite you. 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. Clarke's 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 couldn't 
because it doesn't exist.
  Now, that is 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.
  OK. That is 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, that is not a simple mistake. It is not 
misspeaking. It is not a fib. It is totally and completely untrue in 
written testimony to the U.S. 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 4 years, 
endlessly lectured about the need for the Department of Justice to be 
free from partisan politics and for it to be run by serious, competent 
individuals. They seems 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 the 
Department of Justice. If the Democratic Senators vote to confirm Ms. 
Clarke, they will be responsible for every battle she wages in Joe 
Biden's war on the police, and I will make sure that their voters know 
about it
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 
minutes before the rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it was 1 year ago today. It was a street 
corner in the city of Minneapolis, the corner of 38th and Chicago 
Avenue. For 9 minutes and 29 seconds, Derek Chauvin, a Minneapolis 
policeman, knelt on George Floyd's neck. As he knelt on his neck, he 
stared into a camera with a look that haunts me to this day. Those 9 
minutes and 29 seconds took George Floyd's life and changed America's 
national conversation about law enforcement. Those 9 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 America's long, sometimes bitter march toward equal 
justice under the law. That is why I rise today in support of Kristen 
Clarke's nomination to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil 
Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
  It is worth noting the history of this position. The Civil Rights 
Division is one of the most important components of the Justice 
Department. The Attorney General's 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 form a more perfect Union through the 
13th Amendment's abolishing slavery, the 14th Amendment's guarantee of 
due process and equal protection, and the 15th Amendment's 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 Department's immediate imperative to protect and preserve 
civil rights, President Ulysses S. Grant appointed Amos Akerman to be 
the first Attorney General to lead this new Department. Why? He had 
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 orientation, 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 head of the Civil Rights Division. With her breadth of 
experience defending the civil rights of all Americans, Kristen Clarke 
is singularly qualified to lead this Division, particularly at this 
moment in history.
  Kristen Clarke will be the first Senate confirmed woman of color to 
do so--the first.
  When I listen to the caricatures that are portrayed on the floor of 
the Senate about this woman, I find it hard to believe they are talking 
about the Kristen Clarke that we met in open Senate hearings.
  We know what happened to the Civil Rights Division under President 
Trump. Under President Trump and Attorneys General Sessions and Barr, 
the Civil Rights Division was devastated. Over the past 4 years, the 
Division rescinded guidance protecting transgender students, prohibited 
the use of consent decrees for local police departments that had 
engaged in systemic misconduct, and abandoned the prior legal positions 
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.
  You wouldn't know it from the characterizations on the other side 
about her experience, but, notably, she is a veteran of two of its 
sections. She began her legal career defending voting rights in the 
Voting Section and later prosecuted hate crimes in the Division's 
Criminal Section. She personally

[[Page S3396]]

understands the key role the Division's line attorneys play in 
protecting civil rights.
  Since leaving the Civil Rights Division, Ms. Clarke has continued 
defending civil rights in State government and national civil rights 
organizations. First, Ms. Clarke co-led the NAACP Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund's 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 General's Office, where she played a key role in launching a 
religious rights initiative to address faith-based 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 caricatures that have been drawn on the floor today about who she 
is?
  Most recently, Ms. Clarke was chosen to lead the Lawyers' Committee 
for Civil Rights Under Law. Those of us who follow this closely know 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.
  Here is the part that I want to make a special emphasis on. Both 
Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke have extensive endorsements from law 
enforcement organizations. 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 hoodwinked them into believing that they support law 
enforcement. The women and men in law enforcement aren't pushed around 
and aren't easily deceived. They have endorsed these two women, and 
today we address Kristen Clarke's nomination because of the records 
they have written, not over a period of days or weeks or months but 
years and in some cases decades, that they have written.
  Consider this statement from Sheriff David Mahoney from Dane County, 
WI, recently stepped down from the National Sheriffs' Association.
  Let me quickly add, the National Sheriffs' Association is a powerful 
organization, and it is one that isn't pushed around by any 
politicians.
  Sheriff Mahoney wrote--and I want to quote his words after some of 
the outrageous charges that have been made against Ms. Clarke this 
afternoon. Sheriff Mahoney 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 Clarke. Ms. Clarke has built trust in 
every stage of her career.''
  Does that sound like someone who wants to defund the police? Do you 
think that 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 and domestic violence 
survivors and crime victims. When she was the Chief of the Civil Rights 
Bureau in the New York State Attorney General's office, she built trust 
among New Yorkers to protect their rights, and with the Lawyers' 
Committee, she gained the trust of hate crimes victims and survivors.''
  She has so many endorsements from law enforcement groups and from 
prosecutors. I am not going to read them all into the Record.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have letters of support 
for Ms. Clarke printed in the Record
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         National Organization of 


           Black Law Enforcement Executives, January 30, 2021.

     Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitchell McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Schumer, Minority Leader McConnell, 
     Chairman Durbin, and Ranking Member Grassley: The National 
     Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) 
     formally acknowledges the work and commitment to service that 
     has been exhibited by Ms. Kristen Clarke. She is a long-time 
     partner of NOBLE and the recipient of our 2016 Civil Rights 
     Justice by Action Award.
       Ms. Clarke has displayed the qualities of leadership, 
     empathy, excellence, and persistence in supporting and 
     defending the U.S. Constitution while ensuring equal 
     protection and justice for all Americans. This has been 
     exhibited countless times in roles such as President of the 
     Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Manager of 
     the Civil Rights Bureau of the New York Department of Law.
       It is NOBLE's belief that Ms. Clarke will help to ensure 
     the delivery of its mission which is to ensure equity in the 
     administration of justice in the provision of public service 
     to all communities, and to serve as the conscience of law 
     enforcement by being committed to Justice by Action.
       In closing, this correspondence acts as a formal 
     endorsement of Ms. Kristen Clarke as the next Head of the 
     U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.
           Sincerely,
                                               Dwayne A. Crawford,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                              Major Cities Chiefs Association,

                                                 February 3, 2021.
     Hon. Lindsey Graham,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein: The 
     Major Cities Chiefs Association, a professional organization 
     of police executives representing the largest cities in the 
     United States and Canada, is proud to endorse President 
     Biden's nominations of Lisa Monaco to serve as Deputy 
     Attorney General, Vanita Gupta to serve as Associate Attorney 
     General, and Kristen Clarke to serve as Assistant Attorney 
     General for Civil Rights.
       The Department of Justice (DOJ) has been tasked with 
     addressing a complex set of issues, including police reform, 
     criminal justice reform, violent crime, and domestic 
     extremism. The team President Biden has nominated is 
     immensely qualified for this responsibility. The nominees 
     have decades of experience serving in senior leadership roles 
     within DOJ, other elements of the justice system, the private 
     sector, civil rights and civil liberties organizations, and 
     other key stakeholder groups. This experience will be 
     invaluable as they work to tackle the many challenges facing 
     DOJ.
       In conversations with MCCA leadership, the nominees 
     listened intently to our concerns and expressed a desire to 
     collaborate closely with the MCCA. They indicated that open 
     lines of communication and MCCA input are critical in 
     addressing shared priorities such as advancing constitutional 
     policing, improving officer health and wellness, and 
     combatting the rise in violent crime currently occurring 
     across the country.
       President Biden's DOJ nominees also made it clear that they 
     neither support defunding the police nor believe that doing 
     so will bring about the change our communities are calling 
     for. They pledged to work closely with the MCCA to support 
     and amplify the efforts already underway by many local law 
     enforcement agencies to develop and implement policies and 
     practices that are fair, equitable, transparent, and build 
     trust and legitimacy with all members of the community.
       The MCCA believes these nominees will be effective leaders 
     and valuable partners for local law enforcement agencies. On 
     behalf of the MCCA membership, I respectfully request the 
     Committee act swiftly and support the nominations of Ms. 
     Monaco, Ms. Gupta, and Ms. Clarke.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Art Acevedo,

                                 Chief, Houston Police Department,
     President, Major Cities Chiefs Association.
                                  ____

                                          Hispanic American Police


                                 Command Officers Association,

                                                 February 6, 2021.
     Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Schumer, Minority Leader McConnell, 
     Chairman Durbin, and Ranking Member Grassley: The Hispanic 
     American Police Command Officers Association (HAPCOA) wishes 
     to support and recommend the nomination of Ms. Kristin

[[Page S3397]]

     Clarke to the position of Head of the US Department of 
     Justice Civil Rights Division.
       HAPCOA is the oldest and largest association of Hispanic 
     American command officers from law enforcement and criminal 
     justice agencies at the municipal, county, state, school, 
     university and federal levels.
       HAPCOA's mission is to ``empower the future of law 
     enforcement'' by assisting law enforcement, criminal justice 
     and community organizations nationwide in their efforts to 
     recruit, train, mentor and promote qualified Hispanic 
     American men and women committed to a career in the criminal 
     justice arena and to the communities in which they serve and 
     protect.
       HAPCOA acknowledges the work ethic and commitment of Ms. 
     Clarke and believe that she will be an effective leader as 
     the next Head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Anthony Chapa,
     Executive Director
                                  ____



                                 Dane County Sheriff's Office,

                                                   April 29, 2021.
     Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Schumer, Minority Leader McConnell, 
     Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Grassley: I write to 
     express my strong support for Kristen Clarke, the President's 
     nominee to serve as Assistant Attorney General of the Civil 
     Rights Division.
       I serve as the Sheriff in Dane County, Wisconsin. I was 
     first elected to this position in 2006 and have served four 
     terms in office, and have over 40 years of service in law 
     enforcement. Our office serves the city of Madison, the 
     capital of Wisconsin, and its surrounding cities and towns. I 
     also serve as President of the National Sheriffs' 
     Association, an organization I hold in very high regard.
       Building trust between law enforcement and communities is 
     essential for law enforcement to effectively serve all 
     members of our community. This overarching value is a bedrock 
     principle that has guided my stewardship of the Sheriff's 
     office, and is shared by law enforcement leaders all across 
     the country. This bedrock value is also important to federal 
     law enforcement leaders, who partner with state and local law 
     enforcement to promote public safety and build public trust.
       It is with this in mind that I strongly support Kristen 
     Clarke, the President's Civil Rights Division nominee. Ms. 
     Clarke has built trust at every stage of her career. When she 
     was a federal prosecutor as a young attorney, she gained the 
     trust of federal agents and domestic violence survivors and 
     crime victims. When she was the Chief of the Civil Rights 
     Bureau in the New York State Attorney General's office, she 
     built trust among New Yorkers to protect their rights to 
     practice their faiths, to allow for language access, and to 
     protect against discrimination at work. When Ms. Clarke left 
     government service to lead the non-profit Lawyers' Committee 
     of Civil Rights Under Law, Ms. Clarke gained the trust of 
     hate crimes victims and survivors, to ensure that they could 
     obtain justice against their perpetrators.
       As a tireless advocate for those who have been targeted by 
     inequality, hate, and discrimination, Ms. Clarke is exactly 
     the type of person who should be charged with guarding and 
     enforcing this country's core federal civil rights laws. She 
     is an exemplary lawyer and leader who possesses the 
     character, qualifications, and commitment to lead the Civil 
     Rights Division.
       I urge you and your colleagues to support Ms. Clarke's 
     nomination.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                 David J. Mahoney,
                                  Sheriff, Dane County, Wisconsin.

  Mr. DURBIN. The point I am trying to make is this: At this moment in 
history, filling this Division, the Civil Rights Division, on the 
anniversary of George Floyd's murder on the streets of Minneapolis, we 
are choosing the first woman of color in the history of the United 
States to head this Division. It is a historic choice. It shouldn't be 
trivialized by those who want to paint a caricature of this woman not 
even close to the truth. It shouldn't be trivialized by ignoring the 
many endorsements she rightfully received because of her good life's 
work, having spent her entire career defending the civil rights of all 
Americans.
  Ms. Clarke is the right person for the job. President Joseph Biden 
believes that. The Attorney General believes it, and I believe it as 
well. At a time when we have 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. Clarke's breadth and depth of experience, I 
urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of her nomination.
  I yield the floor.


                       Vote on Clarke Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Clarke 
nomination?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                       Rollcall Vote No. 203 Ex.]

                                YEAS--51

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The Senator from Kansas is recognized.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, I am here today to talk about the 
origins of the COVID-19 virus. I want to stop and thank the scientists 
and journalists who risked and in some instances gave their lives to 
get the genetic sequence of the virus and some hints of its origin out 
to the rest of the world to give us a fighting chance.
  I also want to thank the NIH and Dr. Francis Collins, whose team was 
able to stabilize the virus within a matter of weeks and share that 
technology with the world. This helped to quickly launch the success of 
Operation Warp Speed, as well as other research for testing, anti-
virals, and vaccines.
  But now here we are 16 months into the most catastrophic health 
disaster of our lifetime, and we still have more questions than 
answers. At least 3 million lives have been claimed by the virus, and 
we still don't know its origin. More specifically, we don't know its 
geographical or biological origin. The world deserves to know and needs 
to know where and how it started. Was it naturally occurring, or was it 
made in a lab?
  I am here today to tell you, the preponderance of evidence suggests 
that this virus leaked from a lab in Wuhan. But first let's look at the 
mounting evidence suggesting that COVID-19 is truly a supervirus, the 
product of lab manipulations, including viral gain of function. In 
order to do this, we need to look at the 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 4 months to find an intermediate host, a civet, a 
raccoon-looking mammal. Yes, it only took 4 months to prove that the 
SARS virus went from a bat to a civet to a human. Significantly, 
scientists found 24 viral ancestors to SARS, as the virus

[[Page S3398]]

spontaneously mutated from a virus that would not easily attach to 
human cells into a more lethal virus.
  For MERS, it only took 9 months to find the virus occurring naturally 
in bats, and the intermediate host was camels.
  Yet, with COVID-19, here we are some 16 months later, and we have no 
intermediate host and no COVID-19 found in a live bat. The Chinese tell 
us they tested over 80,000 viral sequences and have come up empty. 
Coincidence?
  No precursors, no grandfather or great-grandfathers, nothing close to 
resembling COVID-19 has been found in nature. As a matter of fact, the 
closest virus we know of to COVID-19 is RaTG13, which has called the 
Wuhan Institute of Virology home for several years. This virus was 
supposedly from bats in Yunnan and transported by scientists to the 
Wuhan viral lab, but of course the Chinese won't hand the virus over to 
the world now for further study.
  Is it possible that RaTG13 could have been manipulated into COVID-19? 
Some experts would say yes. And we know, based upon the words of the 
WIV researcher, Dr. Shi, that the WIV had eight similar viruses to 
RaTG13, but China won't share those either. What are they hiding?
  Here is another interesting feature of COVID-19. It likes humans more 
than bats. As a matter of fact, it doesn't harm bats. So the CCP 
propaganda claims this virus comes from bats, but it doesn't like bats. 
Riddle me that.
  Furthermore, no ancestors of COVID-19 have been found. Recall what 
typically occurs in nature is multiple mutations, just like with the 
SARS infection. We should be able to find multiple mutations as the 
virus goes from bat loving, to an intermediate liking animal, to human 
liking, to human loving. We would certainly welcome contrary evidence 
from the Wuhan labs.
  Now if you will, forgive me for being a bit of a biology lover, but 
as a physician, I think we have to consider just how utterly ferocious 
and seemingly too perfect for nature this virus really is
  COVID-19 has a very 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 even if you only get a small whiff of it, and 
it uses the same human lung receptor that researchers in the United 
States and WIV have been working on together for viral gain of function 
and similar lab techniques for years. Perhaps this is just another 
coincidence.
  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, the research already done may have significantly sped 
up the success of Operation Warp Speed.
  Next we need to discuss one last point about this protein spike and 
how it interacts with human lung cells. And if there is a smoking gun, 
this is it. Remember I talked about this spike, this crown having two 
components, two units. Well, it just so happens that the human lung 
cell has a special cleaver, a cleaver that can recognize--you guessed 
it--a perfect spot on the COVID-19 spike. Bats don't have this ability, 
but human lung cells do.
  Anyway, what happens is, after the COVID-19 virus attaches to the 
human lung cell like glue, the human lung cell cleaves the COVID-19 in 
this perfect spot, and only after this cleavage occurs can the virus 
dump its genetic makeup into the human cell and take over the human 
genetic machinery.
  Now, just don't forget your ninth grade biology class. A virus needs 
another organism to reproduce, and this COVID-19 virus, once it grabs a 
human lung cell, it is not letting go until it takes over and starts to 
multiply like rabbits. After one cell grabs hold and dumps its genetic 
content, a chain reaction occurs that really reminds me of a nuclear 
chain reaction. Once viral replication ignites, it is next to 
impossible to stop.
  There are more microbiology nuances we could talk about and why this 
supervirus is not seemingly a virus from Mother Nature, but I think you 
get my point. Yes, I could be wrong. I hope I am wrong. But only the 
Wuhan labs have the data to prove me wrong, and I am 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 very close proximity to the Wuhan labs. The wet market 
origination theory has been completely dismantled and is really nothing 
more than the usual CCP propaganda and coverup that we have all seen 
too often.
  Now we know without any doubt that 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 what we have known 
for months--that some WIV researchers were hospitalized as early as the 
fall of 2019.
  Just to be clear, these bats that are known to harbor this family of 
viruses have a range of some 50 miles but live in caves in Yunnan 
Province approximately 1,000 miles away from Wuhan. The chances of a 
bat carrying this highly infectious virus 1,000 miles away without 
leaving a trail of infections between Yunnan and the WIV would be like 
the same person walking from New York to Kansas and being struck by 
lightning seven times and surviving.
  Again, China has the evidence to prove these theories wrong, and I 
welcome that data. As a physician, a Senator, a father, and a 
grandfather, we have to assume and prepare for the worst and judge the 
situation based upon 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 isn't. We will need to know how to forgive. We will need to 
make others take responsibility. But what we can't do is keep burying 
our heads in the sand, which is why I am calling on the U.S. delegation 
to the World Health Assembly meeting this week to do everything in 
their power to ensure that a full and unrestricted international 
scientific and forensic investigation into the origins will be 
authorized and also for a parallel comprehensive, bipartisan Senate 
investigation into the origins as well.
  When that is finished, we need to take up the guardrails for viral 
gain-of-function studies. But in the meantime, the American people--
really the entire world--deserve to know the answers to the origins of 
the COVID-19 virus.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                                S. 1260

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I want 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 
microchip production here in the United States, and we are becoming 
increasingly dependent upon countries all over the world. For our own 
manufacturing sector--the automobile sector, the electronics 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. We need 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. No. 1, 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. We are 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 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.

[[Page S3399]]

  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, 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 two 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, is 780 manufacturing plants in 
the last several decades have shut down in America, and 150,000 
American workers were laid off.
  Now, let's talk about how we don't know exactly--nobody does--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 profits. 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 $110 million signing bonus to its CEO, 
Patrick Gelsinger.
  Since 2015, this very same company, Intel, has shipped over 1,000 
jobs overseas. Now, interestingly enough, Intel's CEO has admitted 
recently that it does not need corporate welfare. Let's give them 
credit for that. The CEO recently said 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.'' 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 
well-known Texas Instruments. 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 low-wage countries. The CEO of Texas Instruments 
made over $30 million in total compensation last year--more than 400 
times 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, or what is often referred to as 
``TSMC,'' which is a very, very, very large microchip company. 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 policy, but the largest shareholder in 
TSMC is the Government of Taiwan. So when you give TSMC money, you are 
giving that money directly to the Government of Taiwan.
  Samsung, another very large corporate entity, South Korean, it owns 
several plants in Texas. 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, the top five semiconductor companies 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 the industry that we need if 
we are going to grow the automobile industry, the electronics industry, 
and every other industry in this country. And we need to not be 
dependent upon China and 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.
  That is why I have introduced Senate amendment No. 2016. 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, 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 received taxpayer 
assistance in the bipartisan CARES Act, which passed the Senate 96 to 
0. In other words, every Member of the U.S. Senate has already voted 
for the conditions that are in the amendment that I cosponsored by 
Senator Warren, by the way. They are in the amendment that we are 
offering.
  Further, this amendment will 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, it 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 union organizing 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 96 to nothing.
  I also want to say a word about the provision in there that 
authorizes $10 billion for Blue Origin, 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. It was just an extraordinary accomplishment for all of 
humanity, not just the United States, but we have a special pride 
because that was our project.
  I worry very much that what we are seeing now are 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 
get to the Moon and maybe even the extraordinary accomplishment of 
getting to Mars. 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 in saying we did it but instead 
saying, well, maybe Mr. Bezos or maybe Mr. Musk sent somebody to the 
Moon or maybe 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 a real problem with the 
authorization of $10 billion going to somebody who, among other things, 
is the wealthiest person in this country.
  So what I hope very much is that my amendment will be a part of the 
managers' amendments. I suspect there are Republicans who often tell us 
about wanting to save taxpayer 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 No. 2016, which will be modified to just include provisions 
that were in the CARES bill, that it will be included in the managers' 
amendments that we will be voting on shortly.
  With that, I leave the microphone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

[[Page S3400]]

  

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, Texas has always been a proud supporter 
of an ``all of the above'' energy strategy. We are often recognized as 
an oil and gas powerhouse, which we are, but most folks don't know that 
we are the No. 1 producer of energy from wind, the No. 1 renewable 
resource. In fact, we now produce one-quarter of all wind energy in the 
United States. So if Texas were a country--and my friend from Vermont 
may be interested in this--we would be the fifth largest wind energy 
producer in the world.
  Mr. SANDERS. I did know that.
  Mr. CORNYN. And we don't have any plans of stopping there. We are 
also making serious strides in energy innovation.
  A couple of years ago, I visited the NET Power plant in La Porte, TX, 
right outside of Houston. NET Power is significant because it has 
developed a 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. That is what 
innovation can produce: emission-free electricity from natural gas.
  As impressive as this project is, though, it is made even better by 
the fact that it is 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 
100 million metric tons of carbon per year by the year 2040. A decade 
later, Houston could be carbon-neutral.
  These kind of developments, I think, are incredibly exciting, and 
they showcase, once again, the power of innovation not by the 
government but by the private sector.
  If we are able to reduce emissions without harming our energy 
security, raising taxes, killing high-paying jobs, or driving up costs 
to consumers on a fixed income, why wouldn't we? Breakneck changes in 
technology have fueled our economy, propelled the communications 
sector, and completely transformed our daily lives.
  It is time to harness American ingenuity to revolutionize the energy 
sector. Smart policies can't prioritize only conservation, 
productivity, or economic power. We need to strike a balance of all 
three. You are simply not going to achieve the balance by imposing 
heavy-handed 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, we have 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 
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 the full gamut of clean energy policies. At 
its core, though, it is an anti-fossil fuel bill.
  Given the fact that more than 60 percent of our electricity is 
generated by fossil fuels, that strikes me as a pretty radical position 
to take. 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 percent of our energy production 
last year. In other words, they want to push us into the renewable 
space that only accounted for 20 percent 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 of domestic oil would, once 
again, make the United States rely on countries like Russia, Iran, and 
Venezuela for our energy needs, and obviously we can all see the 
dangers that would produce.
  Our friend John McCain aptly described Russia at one time as ``a gas 
station masquerading as a country.'' Well, that was pretty funny, but 
it is also pretty accurate. Having the United States and our other 
allies over a barrel because of lack of energy diversification and 
domestic production gives them a lot of power--and too much power.
  We know what it has been like for recent decades before we became 
more self-sufficient when it came to energy production. I remember, 
back in 1980, Jimmy Carter famously issued the Carter doctrine after 
the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He suggested that if anyone, any 
country, any adversary of the United States were to blockade the Strait 
of Hormuz, it would be an act of war because the oil that flowed 
through the Strait of Hormuz was essential 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 3 weeks. This affected at least 10 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 we are 
reliant on any other country, let alone our adversaries, to keep our 
lights on and to keep our economy humming.
  And the consequences don't stop there. Beyond harming our energy 
security, the legislation that the Finance Committee will consider 
tomorrow would kill countless high-paying jobs. It would weaken our 
global competitiveness and reverse the economic gains we have made 
because of a thriving oil and gas industry. And that is 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, the vast majority of Americans drive cars 
that run on gas or diesel. When they fill up their tank at the gas 
station, they pay a user fee, or a 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 don't buy gasoline, obviously. They 
don't contribute to the highway trust fund. They don't 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 taxpayer-funded roads virtually free of charge. This 
is incredibly expensive and benefits only a limited group of wealthy 
Americans.
  Let's compare the cost of this program to the carbon capture projects 
I mentioned. Current electric vehicle subsidies equate to spending 
about $455 for every ton of CO2 that is reduced. As a 
reminder, this applies only to emission reduction for cars. Electric 
vehicle subsidies have zero bearing on the carbon emission of the 
manufacturing sector, power generation, or other emission-intensive 
industries.
  Carbon capture and storage, like the ExxonMobil project I mentioned 
earlier, can apply to virtually every source of emissions and at a much

[[Page S3401]]

lower cost. CO2 can be abated for $100 to $200 per ton. That 
is less than half the price of an electric vehicle subsidy.
  I support efforts to reduce carbon emissions to preserve our air, 
land, and water for future generations, but those efforts don't 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 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 energy industry at large. That is how we can keep 
costs down for taxpayers and maintain this revolution in the energy 
sector.
  So I will continue to push back on efforts to weaken our energy 
independence and harm our economy in pursuit of arbitrary goals. There 
is 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington


                           Order of Business

  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous 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 60 affirmative votes required for adoption and 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________