Tom Cotton

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, for many years, I have supported the annual National Defense Authorization Act. The bill always contains many worthy provisions, and it usually passes with large majorities. After all, who wants to vote no when the common refrain to pass the bill is ``Support the troops''? But at some point you have to draw the line, and this year is where I draw it. Just look at these bills over the last few years. Five years ago, the NDAA was 968 pages--not unusual around here and something you can get your hands around. But last year, the NDAA report was 1,794 pages, and this year the report is an astonishing 4,517 pages--not even counting the classified annexes. I doubt anyone really knows what is in it except maybe some lobbyists. And get this: As the bill grew more than sixfold in length, we had even less time to read it. The number of people who could read the bill at any one time was restricted. Social distancing--``Can't have too many people in the room,'' we were told. That is fine. I understand. We are still in a pandemic. But then we should have had more time to review the bill, not less. Yet Armed Services Committee members were asked on this floor last week to sign the bill after having only a couple of hours to review it. As this massive bill was written in secret and then rushed to a vote, some seem to have forgotten to consult with the Commander in Chief or recall that he has veto power. It is pretty well known that the President wants the bill to reform or repeal section 230, the giveaway to Big Tech oligarchs who get to censor the American people without consequence. The bill stiff-arms the President. There is not a word in more than 4,500 pages about section 230. The sponsors claim they couldn't airdrop provisions into the bill at the last minute. I take the point. I am not sure the President will, though, and he is the one with the veto. But there is more. The bill condemns the President for proposing to move some troops out of Germany and restricts his ability to do so, even though NATO's frontier has shifted hundreds of miles to the east and Germany hasn't exactly carried its share of the NATO load. The Senate didn't debate this major policy change. Our earlier bill didn't even mention it. As far as I am concerned, this provision was, to borrow a phrase, airdropped without appropriate consultation with committee members. And for the record, I am a senior member of the committee, but I only learned about this provision in the newspaper on Friday, 2 days after I was asked to sign the bill. It would appear the standard for airdropping provisions into the bill is that we won't airdrop things that support the President's priorities, but we will airdrop stuff that thwarts his priorities. I doubt that will get past the President's veto either. This failure to consult committee members is not an isolated incident. The President's 5G plan released valuable but unused spectrum owned by the government. The Pentagon protested mightily but only with vague evidence. We had a hearing on this issue, and it sharply divided committee members. Yet, again, this bill disrupts the President's plan, and, again, we learned about it only after the fact. Another thing that happens behind closed doors is broken promises. We were promised last summer that the radical Warren amendment wouldn't survive the conference committee. Not only did it survive; not a single word was changed. You may have heard about the Warren amendment. You probably heard that it would merely rename some Army bases that are named after Confederate officers. There is no harm in having that debate. I have always found it curious that we don't have a base named after say U.S. Grant or John Pershing. Yet the Warren amendment is far more radical than merely renaming a few bases. The amendment explicitly applies to all military property. That is a lot more than bases. It includes military museums, service academies, and cemeteries. Do you think I am exaggerating? I am not. Read the bill: no exceptions for museums, for academies, even for cemeteries. Let me give you just one example. The West Point library contains portraits of Grant and Lee in close proximity, two commanders of the Civil War, juxtaposed as today's cadets learn the history of our Nation, our Army, and their own school. But that painting may have to come down. So I suppose tomorrow's cadets may learn that Grant defeated an unnamed enemy with an unnamed commander and accepted surrender from no one at Appomattox. But if you really want to see the radical consequence of the Warren amendment, just look across the river to Arlington National Cemetery, our Nation's most sacred ground. Those gardens of stone stretch in symmetrical rows across the horizon, except for a single odd section laid out in circles, rather than rows, and with pointed headstones, rather than rounded ones. The 482 graves in Section 16 contain the remains of Americans who rebelled against our country. That section also contains a memorial to those who died in that rebellion. We should be grateful that those rebels and their cause lost on the battlefield. Yet we should also be mindful of the historical context of this patch of our most sacred ground. Section 16 of Arlington was created as a symbol not of secession but of reconciliation by the very men who had fought for the Union. President William McKinley--a decorated veteran of the Union Army, promoted three times for battlefield valor--oversaw its creation. In a display of magnanimity, he declared--in front of the Georgia legislature, of all places--that the Federal Government would assume responsibility for Confederate graves. He then signed a bill authorizing the reinterment of Confederate soldiers at Arlington. Senator Warren apparently believes that she knows better how to handle the legacy of our Civil War than did the Union veterans who bled and defeated the Confederacy on the field of battle, or even Barack Obama, who continued a longstanding Presidential tradition in 2009 of sending a wreath to the Confederate section of Arlington on Memorial Day. If the professor gets her way, a crane may drive into Arlington and rip out the memorial whose history dates back to President McKinley and which was honored just a few years ago by President Obama. Again, I am not exaggerating. In the committee markup, Senator Warren said that is exactly what she wants to happen. And if that happens, maybe the professor will be applauded in faculty lounges, but my perspective is a little different. I served at Arlington with the Old Guard. My soldiers and I laid to rest our Nation's heroes. A lot of those funerals started in Section 16. Before those funerals started, we talked sometimes about that odd section and the war that occasioned it. After all, the Army has a lot of amateur Civil War historians. We were proud to wear the uniform of and be the heirs to Grant and Sherman and Sheridan--the great warriors who saved the Union and vindicated freedom and equality for all. We also had a little humility. We didn't presume that we knew better than Grant and McKinley how to heal our Nation's wounds after the Civil War, or that we knew better than Abraham Lincoln, who called for ``malice toward none, with charity for all.'' Maybe Senator Warren and the Jacobins in our streets repudiate the wisdom of Lincoln and Grant and McKinley. Perhaps they think Lincoln should be canceled. A mob tried to tear down his statue just a few blocks from here last summer. Too many of these Jacobins condemn our Nation as racist to its core. They look at the Confederacy and see not a rebellion against America but the true heart of America. So, naturally, their iconoclasm doesn't stop with tearing down statues of Lee but moves right away to statues of Washington, Lincoln, and Grant. They tried to tear down those last summer, too, if you recall. I will never stand by while Jacobins tear down statues of Washington, Lincoln, and Grant, nor will I support a bill that permits a crane to drive into Arlington and desecrate that sacred ground. We celebrate the triumph of the Union and the cause of freedom and equality and the defeat of the Confederacy, but why does it follow that we have to rip paintings off the walls of libraries and museums and tear down war memorials in Arlington National Cemetery? And I suspect a lot of other Senators wouldn't support this bill either if they knew what it does. And that takes me back to a larger problem. We were promised this radical language wouldn't be part of the final bill, but that promise was discarded behind closed doors. Now, we have a 4,500-page bill at the last minute in the rush to fund the government and pass another coronavirus relief bill before the holidays, all with the Presidential veto hanging over it. An overlong bill negotiated behind closed doors, dropped at the last minute, major policy shifts without consensus or even much debate, broken promises, wishful thinking about a veto threat--these are the hallmarks of an NDAA process that has deteriorated rapidly in recent years. That has to change. If it doesn't change this month, mark my words, it will change next year. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I am very pleased the Senate has just passed the ALS Disability Insurance Access Act, 96 to 1, a bill that will bring relief to many Americans suffering from a terrible disease. ALS is a progressive neurodegenerative disease. People with ALS tragically lose the ability to control their muscles, leading to paralysis and, ultimately, death. There is no cure. Many are familiar with ALS because of the baseball legend who succumbed to it at the height of his career, Lou Gehrig. Others know Lou Gehrig's disease because it has touched them or a neighbor or a loved one. I have been fortunate to know several people with ALS. One of my earliest supporters in my first campaign was the great Tommy May of Pine Bluff. Tommy, amazingly, has lived with ALS for nearly 15 years, beating the odds with courage and good humor. Given the gift of time, he devoted his energy to finding a cure for ALS, serving as a trustee on the national ALS Association board. ALS advocates are lucky to have a fighter like Tommy on their side. I have also been fortunate to know Kip Jackson of Little Rock and Thomas Galyon of Rogers and others. Sadly, these ALS advocates have passed away, but I know how pleased they would be to see this bill cross the finish line today. ALS is not like other diseases. It typically appears, without warning, later in life. Its life expectancy within 16 months is only 50 percent--no better than a coin toss. In other words, ALS strikes fast, and it strikes hard. People with ALS typically apply for disability benefits through Social Security. There is a problem. Disability has a 5-month waiting period. This waiting period is meant to ensure that applicants aren't suffering from a temporary affliction, and under most circumstances, it is appropriate. But, of course, ALS isn't temporary. For those who have it, given the odds they face, every month counts. That is why, years ago, Senator Whitehouse and I introduced the ALS Disability Insurance Access Act, which will waive this 5-month period for people with ALS. This will ensure they have rapid access to Social Security in the early days of their diagnosis, so they don't have to worry about benefits and can focus instead on the things that really matter during what could be their final months on Earth. On their behalf, I want to thank Senator Whitehouse for his partnership over the years. I want to thank Senator Braun for what he has done to help get this bill across the finish line today. I am pleased so many of our colleagues supported this bill. I want to explain briefly my position on the amendment offered by Senator Grassley. I support the amendment in concept, but I opposed the amendment today because the original purpose of this bill has always been to address ALS specifically. I will support Senator Grassley's language in future legislation, but to pass this bill in the final days of the 116th Congress, the Senate-- and especially in the days ahead in the House--it was vital that we send the unamended bill to the House. I look forward to working with Senator Grassley in the next Congress to ensure the sustainability of both the Social Security Disability and the ALS trust fund. He has been a great partner in protecting these vital programs, and I know he will be in the future. Finally, I want to close by quoting Lou Gehrig's final address at Yankee Stadium in 1939. He had just received his fatal diagnosis. He didn't focus on the hardships that lay in his future. Instead, he famously exclaimed: I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the Earth. . . . I might have been given a bad break, but I have an awful lot to live for. The same could be said of every person living with ALS today. They have an awful lot to live for, and this bill will help them live. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, the Senate has just voted to conclude debate on the nomination of Kyle Hauptman to be on the Board of the National Credit Union Administration, and we will soon vote to confirm Mr. Hauptman to the administration. This is a very happy moment, of course, for Kyle and his family and the country. For me, I have to confess it is something of a bittersweet moment. That is because Kyle is not only a nominee to a Federal Board. Mind you, he is my trusted economic adviser; he is the staff director for me on the Economic Policy Subcommittee of the Senate Banking Committee; and he is a good friend. So while I voted to confirm Kyle with enthusiasm, my enthusiasm is mixed with sadness to see a close and trusted aide go. But my loss will be America's gain. The NCUA, American taxpayers, and millions of people who rely on credit unions will be well served by Kyle, who brings to the job a collegial spirit and rare knowledge of financial markets. Kyle's expertise comes from years of work for the bipartisan SEC Advisory Committee and on Wall Street itself, where he focused on the very same money markets where credit unions obtain their financing. Lest anyone think that Kyle doesn't understand what struggling American families can face, as an analyst on the Asia desk at Lehman Brothers, Kyle lost his job and his savings during the financial crisis, which means he has a deep and gut-level understanding about how decisions made by bankers and bureaucrats at the top can have serious consequences for everyone else. Kyle has put this knowledge of the banking system and its implications to excellent use as my top aide. He has provided invaluable counsel and shepherded legislation through Congress on topics as wide-ranging as money laundering, consumer fraud, and blockchain technology. In fact, I have high hopes that an anti-money laundering bill on which Kyle and I worked for months, the ILLICIT CASH Act, will pass this Congress before the year is through. That is not all Kyle has accomplished. As a top committee aide, he has worked diligently to plan hearings and broker compromises with other Senators' staff. As anyone who knows Kyle can attest, he is a friendly and fast-talking guy, always ready with a joke and a smile, and his congeniality has helped smooth over many partisan spats so that the business of the American people can move forward. As important, Kyle has served as a valuable liaison between me and credit unions in Arkansas and the surrounding States. Though most credit unions in Arkansas are very small, with maybe millions of dollars under management--not billions of dollars--what our credit unions lack in size they make up for in their mission. They exist not for profit but to serve their members by keeping their money safe and providing credit at reasonable rates of return. So while our credit unions may not always manage vast fortunes, they do manage vast dreams. They safeguard the savings and extend opportunity to a customer base in Arkansas that looks an awful lot like the rest of America--senior citizens who have used the same banks for decades, for instance, or young families building a foundation for a better life. Kyle is very well acquainted with these credit unions from his work for me in the Banking Committee, but you don't have to take my word for it. Just listen to the Arkansas Credit Union Association, which submitted a letter in support of Kyle's nomination. I will quote from it here at length. This is from the group's executive director: On behalf of the Arkansas Credit Union Association, I'll say that we probably feel the same way you do--that he'll be difficult to replace yet the NCUA is lucky to have him. I've gone to Washington for a couple decades now on behalf of Arkansas credit unions, most of which are very small, rural institutions. Our largest credit union has just over $1 billion in assets, which would be considered small even by community-bank standards. The rest are much smaller, where you can count on one hand the number of ATMs they have. While advocating for these community-based lenders, I've encountered a lot of Congressional staffers. Kyle is the best I've dealt with. Given his background at large, international finance firms, you might think Kyle wouldn't understand the needs of our members, who are mostly low- or moderate-income families. Yet it's quite the opposite: he has gone above and beyond to listen, respond quickly and empathize with our concerns. His knowledge of financial markets is an asset, not a liability. I'm aware that NCUA board members aren't like Senate staffers; I'll no longer be a constituent but rather someone working for the institutions Kyle will be regulating. But I think you'll agree that he'll continue to be fair, professional and serious about his work. I can tell you I very much do agree with every word of that letter and similar letters we have received about Kyle and his work on behalf of Arkansans. Washington can sometimes be a confusing place, so Kyle's assistance keeping Arkansans in the loop has been a great blessing to many of the people we serve. I remember the countless emails from small business owners praising Kyle for his help in understanding and receiving assistance through the CARES Act in March, April, and May, at the height of the danger and the uncertainty about the coronavirus pandemic. That was all Kyle, and I am confident he will bring the same customer service mentality to his work at the NCUA. That is because Kyle, like the credit unions he will regulate, is driven by a sense of mission: to help his fellow Americans achieve their financial goals and the American dream. That dream is based on freedom. Alongside his hero, the great apostle of opportunity, Jack Kemp, Kyle knows ``there are no limits to what free men and women and free enterprise in a free society can accomplish when [men and women] are free to follow their dream.'' Credit unions allow millions of Americans to follow their dreams. So while I am sad to say farewell to Kyle as a trusted aide, I will take consolation in the fact that he is going to serve our fellow Americans in the cause of freedom, and I know that he will serve them well. Thank you, Kyle, and Godspeed. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and honor MAJ Brian Leitzke for his dedicated service in the U.S. Air Force and his completion of the Air Force Legislative Defense Fellowship with my office. Major Leitzke joined my office in January of this year, where he served as my Defense Fellow. Previously, he served as an Air Force Fellow in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. As a Defense Fellow, Major Leitzke demonstrated a superior work ethic and tireless dedication to his legislative duties, making him a trusted voice and integral member of my defense team. Major Leitzke drafted or coauthored almost 40 pieces of legislation, including $45.2 billion in authorizations for the National Defense Authorization Act and the CARES Act. Additionally, he prepared for 28 hearings of the Senate Armed Services Committee and orchestrated more than 30 engagements between Department of Defense principals, staff, and Members of Congress. Finally, he single-handedly championed the bill which granted Sergeant First Class Alwyn C. Cashe the President of the United States Medal of Honor Authority. As part of this effort, he galvanized bicameral, bipartisan support across 12 Member offices. Brian is a humble professional, relentlessly focused on accomplishing tremendous work for our nation, as demonstrated both in my office and during his time in the Air Force. Prior to his current status as a Defense Fellow, Major Leitzke was an F-15E instructor at the USAF Weapons School, embracing the task of teaching the Air Force's best tacticians. There, he served as the wing weapons officer and was selected Wing Instructor of the Year. He had a career of continuous flying until this assignment, with combat experience in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, and well over 500 instructor hours. He recently completed an Air University master's with ``Highest Academic Distinction'' and achieved a 4.0 grade point average. Major Leitzke demonstrated tactical acumen and extraordinary leadership ability in each of these challenges, including his time in the Senate. On behalf of the U.S. Senate and a grateful nation, I want to express our thanks to Major Letizke for his dedicated service to the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Senate, Arkansans, and all Americans. My office has benefited greatly from his tireless efforts and leadership. I have no doubt the U.S. Air Force will continue to reap the benefits from this truly dedicated American. As I thank Major Leitzke for his service, I also thank his wonderful family, which has remained by his side for his years of military service. Major Leitzke resides in Woodbridge, VA, with his loving wife, Amanda Leitzke, and three children, Lincoln, Faith, and Kamali. It has been a great privilege to work with Major Leitzke, and I wish him the best of luck on his next assignment. Thank you for everything Major Brian ``Bud'' Leitzke. Continue your work doing ``Good things for America.'' ``Banzai!''

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks before the scheduled 4:30 vote if my remarks run beyond 4:30.

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, a great American anniversary is upon us: 400 years ago this Saturday, a battered old ship called the Mayflower arrived in the waters off Cape Cod. The passengers aboard the Mayflower are, in many ways, our first founders. Daniel Webster called them ``Our Pilgrim Fathers'' on the 200th anniversary of this occasion. Regrettably, we haven't heard much about this anniversary of the Mayflower. I suppose the Pilgrims have fallen out of favor in fashionable circles these days. I therefore would like to take a few minutes to reflect on the Pilgrim story and its living legacy for our Nation. By 1620, the Pilgrims were already practiced at living in a strange land. They had fled England for Holland 12 years earlier, seeking freedom to practice their faith. But life was hard in Holland, and the Stuart monarchy, intolerant of dissent from the Church of England, gradually extended its oppressive reach across the Channel. So the Pilgrims fled the Old World for the New. In seeking safe harbor for their religion, the Pilgrims differed from those settlers who preceded them in the previous century, up to and including the Jamestown settlement just 13 years earlier. As John Quincy Adams put it in a speech celebrating the Pilgrims' anniversary, those earlier settlers ``were all instigated by personal interests'' motivated by ``avarice and ambition'' and ``selfish passions.'' The Pilgrims, by contrast, braved the seas ``under the single inspiration of conscience'' and out of a ``sense of religious obligation.'' Not to say all aboard the Mayflower felt the same. About half of the 102 passengers were known as ``Strangers'' to the Pilgrims. The Strangers were craftsmen, traders, indentured servants, and others added to the manifest by the ship's financial backers for business reasons. The Strangers did not share the Pilgrims' faith, suffice it to say. Winston Churchill, in his ``History of the English-Speaking Peoples,'' wryly observed that the Strangers were ``no picked band of saints.'' So these were the settlers who boarded the Mayflower, which Dwight Eisenhower once characterized as ``a ship that today no one in his senses would think of attempting to use.'' One can only imagine the hardships, the dangers, the doubts that they faced while crossing the north Atlantic. The ship leaked chronically. A main beam bowed and cracked. The passage took longer than expected--more than 2 months. Food and water--or beer, often the beverage of choice--ran dangerously low. But somehow, through the grace of God and the skill of the crew, the Mayflower finally sighted land. Yet the dangers only multiplied. William Bradford, a Pilgrim leader whose ``Of Plymouth Plantation'' is our chief source for the Pilgrim story, recorded those dangers: They had now no friends to welcome them, nor inns to entertain or refresh their weatherbeaten bodies; no houses or much less town to repair to, to seek for succor. . . . And for the season it was winter, and they that know the winters of that country know them to be sharp and violent, and subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much more to search an unknown coast. Besides, what could they see but a hideous and desolate wilderness. And to those physical dangers, you can add legal and political danger. While the Mayflower had found land, it was the wrong land. For, you see, the Pilgrims' patent extended to Virginia, but Cape Cod was hundreds of miles to the north. According to Bradford, ``some of the Strangers,'' perhaps hoping to strike out on their own in search of riches, began to make ``discontented and mutinous speeches.'' These Strangers asserted that ``when they came ashore, they would use their own liberty; for none had the power to command them'' in New England. Maybe they had a point. But Stranger and Pilgrim alike also had a problem: They couldn't survive the ``desolate wilderness'' alone. Before landfall, then, they mutually worked out their differences and formed what Bradford modestly called ``a combination.'' This ``combination'' is known to us and history, of course, as the Mayflower Compact. But this little Compact--fewer than 200 words--was no mere ``combination.'' It was America's very first constitution; indeed, in Calvin Coolidge's words, ``the first constitution of modern times.'' Likewise, Churchill called the Mayflower Compact ``one of the more remarkable documents in history, a spontaneous covenant for political organization.'' High praise coming from him, so it is worth reflecting a little more on a few points about the Compact. First, while the Pilgrims affirmed their allegiance to England and the monarchy, they left little doubt about their priorities. The Compact begins with their traditional religious invocation: ``In the name of God, Amen.'' They expressed as the ends of their arduous voyage, in order, ``the Glory of God,'' the ``advancement of the Christian faith,'' and only then the ``honor of our King and Country.'' And much like the Founding Fathers' famous pledge to each other before ``divine Providence'' 156 years later, the Pilgrims covenanted with each other ``solemnly and mutually in the presence of God.'' Second, they respected each other as free and equal citizens. Whether Pilgrim or Stranger, the signatories covenanted together to form a government, irrespective of faith or station. Third and related, that government would be self-government based on the consent of the governed. The Pilgrims did not appoint a patriarch; they formed a ``civil body politic'' based on ``just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices.'' And immediately after signing the Compact, they conducted a democratic election to choose their first Governor. Fourth, again prefiguring the Declaration, the Pilgrims did not surrender all rights to that government. They promised ``all due submission and obedience'' to the new government--not ``total'' or ``unquestioning'' or ``permanent'' submission and obedience. That obedience would presumably be ``due'' as long as the laws remained ``just and equal,'' and the officers appointed performed their duties in a ``just and equal'' manner. Finally, even in that moment of great privation and peril, the Pilgrims turned their eyes upward to the higher, nobler ends of political society. They listed their ``preservation'' as an objective of the new government, but even before that came ``our better ordering.'' The Pilgrims understood that liberty, prosperity, faith, and flourishing are only possible with order, and that while safety may be the first responsibility of government, it is not the highest or ultimate purpose of government. This new government would do more than merely protect the settlers or resolve their disputes; it would aim for ``the general good of the Colony.'' There, aboard that rickety old ship, tossed about in the cold New England waters, the Pilgrims foreshadowed in fewer than 200 words so many cherished concepts of our Nation: faith in God and his providential protection; the natural equality of mankind; from many, one; government by consent; the rule of law; equality before the law; and the impartial administration of the law. Little wonder, therefore, that Adams referred to the Mayflower Compact and the Pilgrims' arrival as the ``birth-day of your nation'' or that Webster, despite all the settlements preceding Plymouth, said that ``the first scene of our history was laid'' there. But that history was only just beginning. The Pilgrims still had to conquer the ``desolate wilderness'' and establish their settlement. Considering the challenges, it is a wonder that they did. As Coolidge observed, though, the Compact ``was not the most wonderful thing about the Mayflower. The most wonderful of all was that those who drew it up had the power, the determination, and the strength of character to live up to it from that day.'' They would need all that and more to survive what has been called ``the starving time.'' Upon landfall, the Pilgrims ``fell upon their knees and blessed the God of Heaven who had brought them over the vast and furious ocean.'' But it would be a ``sad and lamentable'' winter of disease, starvation, and death, as half the settlers died and seldom more than half a dozen had the strength to care for the ill, provide food and shelter, and protect the camp. As anyone who has endured a New England winter knows, at that rate, there might not have been any camp left to protect by spring. But what can only be seen as a providential moment came in March, when a lone Indian walked boldly into their camp and greeted them in English. His name was Samoset. He had learned some broken English by working with English fishermen in the waters off what is now Maine. Samoset and the Pilgrims exchanged gifts, and he promised to return with another Indian, Squanto, who spoke fluent English. Squanto's Tribe had been wiped out a few years earlier by an epidemic plague. He now lived among the Wampanoag Tribe in what is today Southeastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The plague had also weakened the Wampanoags, though not neighboring rival Tribes. The Wampanoag chief, Massasoit, thus had good reason to form an alliance with the Pilgrims. Squanto introduced him to the settlers and facilitated their peace and mutual aid treaty, which lasted more than 50 years. Squanto remained with the Pilgrims, acting, in Bradford's words, as ``their interpreter'' and ``a special instrument sent of God for their good beyond their expectations.'' He instructed them on the cultivation of native crops like corn, squash, and beans. He showed them where to fish and to hunt. He guided them on land and sea to new destinations. And you probably remember what happened next. As the Pilgrims recovered and prospered throughout 1621, they received the blessings of a bountiful fall harvest. The Pilgrims entertained Massasoit and the Wampanoags and feasted with them to express their gratitude to their allies and to give thanks to God for His abundant gifts. This meal, of course, was the First Thanksgiving. Now, the Thanksgiving season is upon us, and, once again, we have much to give thanks for. But this year we ought to be especially thankful for our ancestors, the Pilgrims, on their 400th anniversary. Their faith, their bravery, their wisdom places them in the American pantheon. Alongside the Patriots of 1776, the Pilgrims of 1620 deserve the honor of American Founders. Sadly, however, there appear to be few commemorations, parades, or festivals to celebrate the Pilgrims this year, perhaps in part because revisionist charlatans of the radical left have lately claimed the previous year as America's true founding. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Pilgrims and their Compact, like the Founders and their Declaration, form the true foundation of America. So count me in Coolidge's camp. On this anniversary a century ago, he proclaimed that ``it is our duty and the duty of every true American to reassemble in spirit in the cabin of the Mayflower, rededicate ourselves to the Pilgrims' great work by re-signing and reaffirming the document that has made mankind of all the earth more glorious.'' Some--too many--may have lost the civilizational self-confidence needed to celebrate the Pilgrims. Just today, for instance, the New York Times called this story a ``myth'' and a ``caricature'' in the food section, no less. Maybe the politically correct editors of the debunked 1619 Project are now responsible for pumpkin pie recipes at the Times as well. But I, for one, still have the pride and confidence of our forebears. So here, today, I speak in the spirit of that cabin, and I reaffirm that old Compact. As we head into the week of Thanksgiving, I will be giving thanks this year in particular to ``our Pilgrim Fathers'' and the timeless lessons they bequeathed to our great Nation. For as Coolidge observed, ``Plymouth Rock does not mark a beginning or an end. It marks a revelation of that which is without beginning and without end.'' May God continue to bless this land and may He bless the memory of the Pilgrims of 1620. I extend my best wishes to you and to your family for a Thanksgiving as happy and peaceful as the First Thanksgiving. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, the men and women of law enforcement in Arkansas could have no greater champion in the U.S. Senate than John Boozman. It is always an honor to join him on the floor, but today is a sad and solemn honor to be here to commemorate the life of Detective Kevin Collins. Detective Collins of Pine Bluff had known since he was the young age of 3 that he wanted to be a police officer. His step-dad worked for the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department. His mom was a teacher. So from an early age, the role models in Kevin's life inspired him to serve others, and serve he did, above and beyond the call of duty. For a time he worked as an emergency services dispatcher. Then he worked for the Arkansas Department of Corrections. Five years ago, he realized his childhood dream by joining his hometown police department to serve the community he knew and loved. Detective Collins was part of the violent crimes unit, which means he worked on some of Arkansas' most dangerous cases. He had a special passion for taking illegal guns off the streets and mentoring young people in the community. His hard work was noticed and rewarded. Just 2 years after joining the force, Detective Collins was named Officer of the Year after rushing into a burning apartment building and rescuing a 95-year-old woman trapped inside. When he received that award, Detective Collins reflected on his lifelong dream of becoming a police officer, which he described as a ``service'' and something ``I could be proud of.'' You could say that Kevin Collins was destined to be a police officer. Tragically, he was also destined to die as one, much too soon. Earlier this month, Detective Collins was tracking a suspected murderer who was holed up in a hotel. A gun battle broke out. Detective Collins and his fellow officer, Lieutenant Ralph Isaac, were hit during this exchange and rushed to the hospital. Lieutenant Isaac has begun to recover, but, sadly, Detective Collins did not. He went home to be with the Lord at the age of 35, leaving his family, his community, and our State heartbroken over the loss. Detective Collins' death is a tragedy and a stark warning and reminder of the dangers police officers face every day. Detective Collins joins 231 of his fellow officers who have died in the line of duty in America just this year, but it would be a mistake only to mark Detective Collins' death. We ought also to learn from his example in life. Kevin Collins was a guardian of Pine Bluff, whether in his capacity as an officer or off duty as a security guard at his local church. When he received the Officer of the Year Award in 2017, Detective Collins said that being a police officer was about extending a ``life line to save others.'' We will never know how many lives Kevin Collins saved, but we do know that his hometown is now safer and more peaceful because of his years of service. Pine Bluff was blessed to have a guardian the likes of Kevin Collins. Now his watch on Earth is over. He is looking down on us from above. May he rest in peace.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, mercifully, I know of no further debate on the motion.

Mr. COTTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, we are facing momentous issues in the Senate and in Washington and in our Nation. Today, we are debating a spending bill to keep the government funded past the end of this month. There are ongoing negotiations to help provide additional relief to those most affected by the coronavirus. With the sad news of the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, there is now a Supreme Court vacancy as well. As momentous as these issues are, we ought not miss what is happening on the streets of America, though, as too many in Washington missed for years as Americans were dying by the thousands as a result of the opioid epidemic that hit this country, from prescription pills to heroin, to synthetic opioids like fentanyl. Now, in recent years, Washington has gotten the news, and we have taken action to try to stem the tide of drug overdoses around our country. But the fight continues, so I want to call the Senate and the Nation's attention to a new threat: isotonitazene. It is harder to pronounce than fentanyl, but it is equally deadly. It will kill you in a heartbeat, and it also comes from China. Reports of iso--as this hard-to-pronounce drug is often called on the street--are still scattered. A shipment was seized in Canada early last year. Now it has been popping up in Europe, in countries as far flung as Belgium, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, and, at about the same time, iso has found its way to America as well. It has turned up in both pill and powder form, seemingly shipped in concentrated, small quantities that escape detection too often. Once it is here, it is usually cut with other drugs, like heroin and cocaine, to make them more powerful and much more deadly. An unsuspecting drug user can inject a tainted dose or take a counterfeit prescription pill and be dead within minutes. Iso is just like fentanyl in that regard. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, iso is confirmed to have killed at least 18 Americans in 4 different States and has been encountered in at least 48 confirmed incidents across 9 States. However, it has likely killed many more. We don't know for sure because tests for iso still are not widely available, given its novelty, and overdose deaths due to a cocktail of iso mixed with heroin, cocaine, or other drugs may be inadvertently attributed only to the known substance. What we do know is that iso is just the latest weapon that the Chinese drug dealers are using in their opium war against America. First, they developed designer fentanyl analogs, which have killed--and continue to kill--Americans by the thousands. However, we have taken strong action against fentanyl. Last year, we passed my legislation, the Fentanyl Sanctions Act, to punish Chinese drug dealers, and the President--equally important--pressured China's leader to crack down on underground drug labs in their own country, which sent nine fentanyl smugglers to prison. These efforts have made a difference, but the fight is not over. China's drug dealers have developed a new poison to send to America. Iso has no recognized medical or industrial use. It is nothing more and nothing less than a way to profit off of addiction and death. These Chinese drug dealers want iso to be the new fentanyl, so we have to take strong action to make sure they fail before more Americans are killed. The DEA has already taken swift action by classifying iso as a schedule I controlled substance, its most restrictive classification. But this is only a temporary measure that will last 2 years, at most. Congress should, therefore, act to ensure iso stays on that list for good. That is why I am introducing legislation to permanently classify iso as a schedule I controlled substance. This will ensure iso receives the strictest regulations under our drug laws, and it will help our brave drug enforcement agents keep this deadly drug off of our streets. Furthermore, I call upon the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party to crack down on the production of iso in the Chinese mainland. If the leaders of the party wish to reduce tensions, if they wish to improve relations, they ought not to allow their own criminals to manufacture drugs with no legitimate purpose specifically designed for smuggling into America to poison our citizens. I urge my colleagues and the administration to join in this effort to stop iso before it spreads even further. This drug has already killed too many of our fellow citizens. We need to stop it before it kills even more.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON. I know of no further debate on this nomination.

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. COTTON. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, 20 years ago this week, Joe Biden and other politicians from both parties gave a gift to the Communist Party: permanent most favored nation status. Permanent most favored nation status is a trade privilege we grant most countries that are members of the World Trade Organization. It places lower tariffs and fewer restrictions on those countries' goods. But historically our trade laws have treated hostile countries differently--Communist countries, countries that cheat on trade, human rights abusers; in other words, countries exactly like Communist China. A few of those countries, like Cuba and North Korea, are denied most favored nation status outright. What few goods their miserable socialist economies produce face steep tariffs, sanctions, and other restrictions, which is one reason you don't see too many ``Made in North Korea'' items on your local store shelves. Other countries historically have faced a yearly review of their trading privileges with the United States in which the President and Congress can assess the human rights and trade abuses ongoing in those countries and then determine whether it is in our interests to grant those trading privileges for another year. Communist China was one of those countries subject to yearly review-- at least it was until 20 years ago. This yearly review led the spirited debates about whether Communist China should be stripped of its trading privileges or whether it deserved a temporary reprieve. It put a spotlight on the crimes of the Chinese Communist Party, and it used our market as leverage to advance our interests. Of course the Chinese Communist Party didn't like that--not one bit; neither, sadly, did many bankers and businessmen here in America, who seemed a little more concerned about making money than pressuring Communist China to reform. This China lobby pushed hard to get rid of the annual vote and give China permanent most favored nation status, and 20 years ago this week, they finally won. Here is how Senator Joe Biden defended his vote at the time to give a big gift to Communist China. He said: Trade concessions are all one-way in this deal. They drop tariffs. They drop non-market barriers. They agree to increased protection of our intellectual property laws. That is what Joe Biden said at the time, but is that what actually happened? Were all the trade concessions ``one way,'' as he predicted? In fact, they were, but not the way Joe Biden intended because all the trade concessions ended up benefiting Beijing, while devastating America. The main consequence of that decision was to make it harder to put tariffs on China in response to human rights and trade abuses, and it sent a strong signal to businesses and banks that China was open for business for good. The gold rush to China was on. In the two decades that followed, America invested more than $200 billion in China. Most of that money went to building factories and training workers over there, while our factories were dismantled and our workers were laid off. In the 6 years that followed that vote, manufacturing employment plunged by 18 percent as cheap Chinese goods flooded our market and as our factories were dismantled and offshored to China. The vote to give trade privileges to Communist China is just more evidence of the alternate reality that politicians like Joe Biden have been living in for decades. There is a consistent pattern. They treat our enemies like friends and our friends like enemies, and the American people suffer because of it. Twenty years of getting ripped off by China is more than long enough. That is why I am introducing a bill that would repeal China's permanent most favored nation status and return us to the older way, where China's trade status would be assessed by the President and Congress every year. My bill would make businesses think twice before sending more American jobs overseas to China, and it would add new human rights and trade standards that China must work toward to qualify for most favored nation status. This would put a spotlight on the Communist Party's most recent crimes, including its use of slave labor and concentration camps in Turkestan. Ultimately, repealing China's most favored nation status would force regular votes in Congress, so politicians like Joe Biden would have to go on the record about whom they serve--the American people or the interests of the Chinese Communist Party

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. COTTON. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, if cloture is invoked on the Kan nomination, the confirmation vote occur at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, July 30. I further ask that the cloture vote on the Kaplan nomination occur at 2:45 p.m. today and that, if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be considered expired and the Senate immediately vote on his confirmation. I further ask that the cloture vote on the McFerran nomination occur at 4:45 p.m. today and that, if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be considered expired and the Senate immediately vote on her confirmation. Finally, I ask that, if any of these nominations are confirmed, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. The cars we drive, the planes we fly, and the smartphones we have in our pockets are all powered by computer chips--or semiconductors--a technology that is key to modern society and that may determine whether America or China leads the world in the decades to come. Computer chips were, of course, pioneered in America. Cold War-era initiatives like the Apollo Program, DARPA, and SEMATECH created the breakthroughs and steady demand for this high-tech industry. Storied American companies like Intel, IBM, Texas Instruments, Micron, and others commercialized and then perfected this technology. Brilliant American entrepreneurs and engineers kick-started the digital revolution that shaped the modern world. That was then. Today, sadly, most semiconductors are not made in the U.S.A. We have learned during this pandemic how dangerous it is to rely on distant factories and overstretched supply chains that can be compromised by emergencies or enemies. Well, almost three-quarters of the world's capacity to make computer chips is located in just a handful of countries in East Asia--closer to Communist China than our shores and all within range of the missiles of the People's Liberation Army. China is investing huge sums--possibly $150 billion--in its semiconductor industry. This investment is paying off. For the first time ever, last year China surpassed the United States in its capacity for manufacturing advanced chips. China is projected to surpass Japan and South Korea in the next 2 years, which would put it behind only Taiwan, an island just 80 miles off its shore, which, I must remind you, the PLA regularly trains to invade. We cannot allow China to dominate production of computer chips. Doing so would be a grave threat that could allow a corrupt clique of Communists to impose a high-tech tyranny on the rest of the world. That is why I am offering a bipartisan amendment, along with Senators Cornyn, Schumer, Warner, and others, to ensure American leadership in computer chips in the face of this Chinese threat. Our proposal calls for key investments in advanced factories and research and development so that America discovers and then produces the next generation of semiconductor technology. It also requires the Department of Defense and the intelligence community to work with trusted industry partners to secure the supply chain for computers chips for our military and other national security needs. This bill is a moonshot investment, and such investments don't come cheap. So I regret that the question of funding this bill has been postponed to another time, but I look forward to having and winning that debate because, make no mistake, robust support is needed to ensure the future of the American semiconductor industry. At the very least, it is necessary to level the playing field so that American companies can compete against the coercive, anti-competitive, and mercantilist policies of Communist China and others. It will provide a surge of support and demand for advanced technology, just as the Federal Government has always provided. We offer this amendment so that the next digital revolution is also made in the U.S.A., not in Communist China. I urge my colleagues to support it and to support America's continued technological primacy in the world. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, what is happening at this moment in Hong Kong is a tragedy, a crime, an affront to the civilized world. In a year in which so much has happened, we may look back in the near future and view this moment in Hong Kong as the single biggest moment of the year. It is not getting enough attention, though, because the Communist Party is using the pandemic as cover for its crimes against Hong Kong. Under the cover of night, the Communist Party's puppets in Hong Kong have enacted a security law that threatens to sweep aside the traditions and freedoms that have made that city such a special place. While the Chinese Communist Party hasn't yet rolled in tanks, as it did in Tiananmen Square, the effects of this law are no less chilling to democracy. The security law imposes broad prohibitions on what it calls subversive activities. What kinds of activities? Activities like waving flags or chanting a slogan like ``Hong Kong independence'' or ``Hongkongers, build a nation.'' In other words, the security law criminalizes basic elements of peaceful protests and democratic change that Hongkongers have used for years and that set them apart from their fellow citizens on the mainland. The new law also erodes the rights of the accused that are essential to a fair legal system. The Chinese Communist Party isn't interested in rights or fairness. It is interested in control--total control--and this law exerts total control over the people of Hong Kong. Under the new law, protesters accused of such vague crimes as separatism and collusion can be smuggled away to mainland China to be tried in Communist courts. The so-called crimes don't even have to be committed in Hong Kong in order to be punished; the new law could encompass expatriates with foreign citizenship living overseas--even here in America. So simply meeting with a U.S. Senator, like me or Senator McConnell or Senator Schumer or Senator Van Hollen, could land a Hongkonger in prison for a lifetime. The China Communist Party thus is extending its iron rule beyond its own shores to our free soil. Those convicted under the new law could face life imprisonment, alongside the many underground church leaders, Uighurs, Tibetans, Falun Gong members, and other persecuted individuals the Chinese Communist Party has already ``disappeared.'' Indeed, the crackdown is already underway. The Chinese Communist Party's agents in Hong Kong rounded up as many as 300 protesters this week for what it called unlawful assembly. Some of the protesters were arrested under the supposed authority of the new security law. Their fate at this moment is unknown. The takeover of Hong Kong may seem like an event far away, especially when we have so many problems at home. But the same could have been said after the Second World War when Stalin and the Soviet secret police dropped an Iron Curtain over Eastern Europe. Czechoslovakia and Poland were far away, too, but the brutal repression of their people showed the world what was at stake in the titanic struggle between freedom and communism. We face the same sort of titanic struggle today, and it is not limited to Hong Kong. All across the periphery, the Chinese Communist Party is acting aggressively. It has essentially invaded India and killed 20 Indian soldiers. In the South China Sea, it has attacked or otherwise threatened vessels from Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines and has repeatedly and increasingly encroached on Taiwanese and Japanese airspace. But in Hong Kong, the security law proves most clearly that the Chinese Communist Party will not abide by its commitments, whether to its own people or to foreign nations. Through actions this week, Beijing has effectively torn up the joint declaration it made with Britain to govern the peaceful handover of Hong Kong just as cynically as China has broken its commitments to the United States, to the World Trade Organization, to the World Health Organization, and others. And, of course, this law exposes once again the hideous nature of communism, which is so paranoid and insecure it can't tolerate even a tiny outpost of freedom within its borders. No wonder. Freedom is an attractive, precious, and contagious thing. The way of life enjoyed by the citizens of Hong Kong could give the wrong ideas to the 1 billion Chinese yearning for freedom elsewhere in the country. Nothing could be more threatening to the Chinese Communist Party's rule. Now the party has begun the takeover that Hongkongers have long feared. Those of us with freedom to speak and act on their behalf must do so now, as one of the great citadels of Asia slips into the totalitarian darkness. While dark days may lie ahead for Hong Kong, one day the future will return the sunny highlands of freedom to that small citadel I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, our country faces real challenges today. For example, anti-American mobs are roaming the streets in many cities, tearing down statues of our greatest statesmen, men like Abraham Lincoln, U.S. Grant, and George Washington, after whom this Capital City is named. But the Democrats aren't doing anything about that problem. Oh, no, on the contrary, the mob is, in many ways, the youth movement of the Democratic Party. So they are perfectly content to look the other way-- or even cheer it on. I mean, have you heard Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, or Nancy Pelosi denounce the mob violence we see on our streets? Me neither. Instead, the Democrats have found another pressing issue. The House is voting tomorrow on a bill to make Washington, DC, a State. If that sounds insane, you are not alone. More than two-thirds of the American people oppose DC statehood, according to a Gallup poll last summer. By some estimates, DC statehood is less popular even than defunding the police. So why are the Democrats pushing for it? The answer is simple--power. The Democrats want to make Washington a State because they want two new Democratic Senators in perpetuity. The Democrats are angry at the American people for refusing to give them total control of the government, for going on a decade now. So they want to give the swamp as many Senators as your State has. They want to make Washington a State to rig the rules of our democracy and try to give the Democratic Party permanent power. In doing so, the Democrats are committing an act of historical vandalism as grotesque as those committed by Jacobin mobs roaming our streets. In their rush to make Washington a State, they disregard the clear warnings of our Founding Fathers. If the Democrats succeed in forcing through DC statehood, they will do so only as a narrow faction that scorns the history of our country and seizes power against the will of the people who want Washington to remain what it has been for more than 200 years--a Federal city, our Nation's Capital. The District of Columbia is unusual, though not unique, among capitals of the world, in that it didn't grow naturally over the centuries but was purpose-built as the Capital of our Nation. The Founders created Washington as a Federal city so that the operations of government would be safe and free from domination by the States around it. James Madison wrote in Federalist 43 that ``the indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it.'' It is so obvious as to be self-evident. Without complete control over its territory, Madison wrote, the government ``might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity.'' Hostile magistrates or an angry mob might interfere with the people's elected representatives or even usurp the government. Now, this was no abstract concern for the Founders. Just 5 years before Madison wrote those words, several hundred mutinous soldiers assailed the Congress in Philadelphia, where it met at the time. They issued demands to Congress for money and wantonly pointed their muskets at Independence Hall. Pennsylvania's Governor rejected Congress's pleas for help, saying he would wait until the mob committed some actual outrages on persons or property before sending in the State militia. Congress ultimately had to adjourn and flee to New Jersey while Washington sent in troops to put down the mutiny. This mutiny was an insult, an interruption of the sort Madison refers to in Federalist 43. The Founders made Washington, DC, independent so that the Federal Government would never again be at the mercy of a mob or a hostile State. The wisdom of this decision was on display just days ago when violent riots erupted near the White House, setting fire to a historic church and committing other acts of vandalism and destruction across the city. Those riots were contained thanks to an impressive show of force by Federal law enforcement officers under Federal control. One can only imagine how much worse the destruction would have been if those Federal officers hadn't been there, if most of Washington were under the control not of the Federal Government but of a leftwing politician like Muriel Bowser, who frequently takes the side of rioters against law enforcement. Would you trust Mayor Bowser to keep Washington safe if she were given the powers of a Governor? Would you trust Marion Berry? More importantly, should we risk the safety of our Capital on such a gamble? Now, of course, the Democrats will argue that the statehood bill doesn't entirely eliminate Federal control of Washington because it preserves a small Federal district that encompasses the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, the National Mall, and a few other government buildings. What a humbling demotion from the grand Federal city that President Washington and Pierre L'Enfant envisioned more than 200 years ago, which they hoped would rival Paris in size and ambition. By contrast, look at this ridiculous map. Look at it. The Democrats propose to turn Washington into little more than a gerrymandered government theme park, surrounded on all sides by a new State controlled, of course, by the Democrats. The Federal Government's safety and independence cannot be assured by such a laughable district. Again, look at it. It has 90 sides. A mere city block, less than 200 yards, separates the White House from the proposed boundaries of a new State, governed at present by a politician who hates the President. The Supreme Court and several congressional office buildings are right at the edge of the map, separated from the new Democratic State by the width of a single city street. In the event of emergency, like the Philadelphia mutiny of 1783, those narrow boundaries could jeopardize the operations of the Federal Government. Consider also what is not included in this ridiculous new map of a new Washington, DC. The headquarters of the Department of Homeland Security would be outside the Federal Government's control, as would be the headquarters of the FBI and the FCC, which governs all communications in the country. The seat of government would be separated for the first time from its military bases--Fort McNair in Southwest Washington, the marine barracks in Southeast Washington, and Bolling Air Force Base, across the river. Washington's roughly 200 foreign embassies would no longer be in the Federal district but in the Democrats' new State, giving it unusual prominence in foreign affairs--precisely the kind of treatment the Founders hoped to avoid by creating a Federal city. While the proposed Federal District would have access to a single powerplant, undoubtedly it would rely on the Democrats' new State for many basic utilities--not just power but water, sewage, and telecommunications. It would also rely on the new State, as well as Virginia, for access by land. The civil servants and officers of the Federal Government would have no choice but to reside in a different State on which they would wholly depend for access to the Federal zone. These may seem like minor or obscure problems, and, at peaceful times, maybe they are. But recognize the truth: The government of the most powerful Nation in the world wouldn't have control of critical infrastructure necessary for its own safety, functioning, and independence in a crisis. Maybe that seems like a remote danger, although one should think better after the riots earlier this month, to say nothing of the Civil War itself, when our seat of government faced imminent danger in encirclement by hostile forces. In fact, the danger was so severe that President Lincoln wanted Washington to be enlarged, not diminished, and to include the area south of the Potomac that was retroceded to Virginia in 1846. He said: The present insurrection shows, I think, that the extension of this District across the Potomac at the time of establishing the capital here was eminently wise, and consequently that the relinquishment of that portion of it which lies within the state of Virginia was unwise and dangerous. How much more unwise and dangerous would it be to shrink the Federal District even further to just a few buildings in a 90-sided map? But that is exactly what the Democrats propose to do. Those are just the practical and prudential problems. DC statehood also presents a grave constitutional conundrum. Attorneys General as diverse as Bobby Kennedy and Ed Meese understood that the 23rd amendment to our Constitution forecloses the Democrats' statehood proposals. The 23rd amendment, ratified in 1961, gave Washington residents a meaningful vote in Presidential elections. The amendment grants three electoral votes to, in its own words, ``the district constituting the seat of government of the United States.'' But of course, the Democrats' new State would also be entitled to its own three electoral votes. Yet, if the 23rd amendment isn't repealed, the rump Federal district will retain its three electoral votes. The practical effect, of course, would be to increase the swamp's electoral power in Presidential elections. Even the radical Democrats can't ignore this thorny problem. Their bill calls for the swift repeal of the 23rd amendment, but they would allow Washington to become a State before the amendment is repealed. But there is no assurance that the amendment would actually be repealed. The Constitution has only been amended on 18 occasions in our Nation's history. It is not a walk in the park in the best of times. Yet the Democrats want you to think they can pull off an amendment to alter the electoral college in the midst of a Presidential election. In the meantime, DC statehood, along with the 23rd amendment, will lead to absurd consequences. This small Federal district, with three electoral votes, would have virtually no residents. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only residents in the district are right here, in the White House. If the House passes this bill tomorrow and the Senate were to approve it for the President's signature, then Donald and Melania Trump need only change their voter registration from Florida to Washington to get their own--their very own--three electoral votes. I can't help but think this isn't what Nancy Pelosi had in mind. Even putting aside these practical and constitutional problems with DC statehood, though, we return to a basic truth: Washington is a city with all the characteristics of a city, not a State. Washington doesn't have the size or diversity of interest of even the smallest of the 50 States. Consider Washington's size. At just shy of 70 square miles, DC is 18 times smaller than the smallest State in the union--Rhode Island. But, of course, the Democrats say size doesn't matter. What matters is population. Washington has just over 700,000 residents--more than Wyoming and Vermont and about as many as Alaska. Doesn't this qualify Washington as a State? If it did, we would need a lot more States because Washington is just the 20th largest city in the country. If Washington deserves to be a State at 700,000 residents, how much more does New York City deserve to be its own State at 8 million residents? Perhaps Bill de Blasio should trade out his title of mayor for Governor, all the better to battle his nemesis Andrew Cuomo on equal terms. But let's not give the Democrats any bright ideas. What about Jacksonville, FL, at more than 900,000 residents, shouldn't we have a State of Jackson to accompany the new State of Washington? We all know that will not do. Jacksonville is governed by a Republican, and the Democrats have canceled Andrew Jackson. Washington also doesn't have the diversity of interest and financial independence that Madison explained were necessary for a well- functioning State. Yes, Wyoming is smaller than Washington by population, but it has 3 times as many workers in mining, logging, and construction, and 10 times as many workers in manufacturing. In other words, Wyoming is a well-rounded, working-class State. A new State of Washington would not be. What about Alaska? It provides more than 60 percent the Nation's seafood, and its vital geography protects the entire Nation with missile defense systems and enables us to check Russian and Chinese ambitions in the Arctic. But what vital industries would the new State of Washington represent--lobbying, bureaucracy? Give me a break. By far, the largest group of workers in the city ar bureaucrats and other white collar professionals. This State would be nothing more than an appendage of the Federal Government, not separate from the government, as the State ought to be. Faced with these insuperable facts, the Democrats will retreat to the claim that it is not fair for Washington to pay taxes but not be represented in Congress. Washington residents, they say, get a raw deal. ``No taxation without representation,'' as their license plates proclaim. But, of course, this is backward. As our Nation's Capital, the District of Columbia is represented by the very fact of its privileged position, and it reaps the benefits of that privilege. For every $1 that District residents pay in taxes, they get $4 back in Federal spending. That is more than any of the 50 States. Nor is Washington unique in its relationship to Congress. Just like other Territories--Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands--Washington has a nonvoting member of Congress who is empowered to introduce legislation, advocate for it on the House floor, and sit on committees. In fact, Washington's Delegate introduced the very bill that Democrats plan to vote on tomorrow to create this ridiculous Federal district. If it is a special indignity for Washington residents not to have a voting Member of Congress, is it also an indignity for the 55,000 American Samoans? Should they get two Senators as well? Once again, though, let's not give the Democrats any bright ideas. They already want to make Puerto Rico a State. But all of my observations about the practical effects and constitutional obstacles in the end give too much credit to what the Democrats are really up to--a naked power grab. Democrats in Congress are advocating DC statehood against the will of the American people-- including the will of democratic voters, a majority of whom oppose DC statehood. Democratic politicians are pushing for this radically unpopular idea not because it is a sound idea but because they are angry that they don't win every election under the current rules, and so they want to change the rules. If you doubt this whole endeavor is about power, consider that the Democrats could just as easily call for retroceding the District of Columbia to Maryland. This would give Washington residents the voting power in Congress that is supposedly at the heart of this matter--a voting Member in the House, probably of its own, and representation in the Senate. There is even historical precedent for retrocession, unlike turning the Federal District into a State. But retrocession wouldn't give the Democrats their real aim--two Democratic Senators in perpetuity to rubberstamp the swamp's agenda. So you will not hear them talk about that. Also consider the Democrats' other big idea as of late. You will see that startling them. Earlier this week, the junior Senator from Delaware expressed his openness to ending the legislative filibuster in the Senate, even though he wrote the letter demanding that we preserve the filibuster. Having two more Democratic Senators would be awfully handy to that goal. The Democrats also have a scheme to abolish the electoral college so that a handful of massive, liberal cities can pick the President. They want to pack the Supreme Court so liberal activists never lose again at the highest Court in our land. These proposals have practical and constitutional problems as glaring as DC statehood, but the Democratic Party pushes forward nevertheless because their goal is to accumulate as much power as possible and never relinquish it. This week, the mob comes for Washington--his statue, his history, and now his city. We must oppose this destructive campaign in the Senate, just as it is opposed by the majority of American people across the country. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, the ``World Famous Highly Respected'' 555th Fighter Squadron, commonly known as the Triple Nickel, recently completed the Department of Defense's first real-world combat Dynamic Force Employment DFE to United States Central Command. In plain English, the Triple Nickel executed an unplanned departure to the Middle East last fall to combat Iranian aggression against the United States and our allies in the region. During its historic deployment, the squadron flew more than 7,000 hours supporting operations in the Arabian Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Demonstrating the rapid, agile, and lethal characteristics of airpower, the Nickel executed defensive counter-air missions in Syria-- routinely intercepting and monitoring Russian, Syrian, and Iranian aircraft operating near U.S. and partnered ground forces. It also provided close air support to troops battling the Taliban in Afghanistan, as well as ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The Nickel returned home in December as Iran's aggression began to wane but deployed a second time only days later when tensions rapidly escalated following the U.S. strike against Qasem Soleimani. The squadron subsequently executed force protection missions in Iraq during and after Iran's missile attacks against U.S. forces. The Triple Nickel then deployed to a second expeditionary operating location. U.S. F-16s had not conducted combat missions from this location since 2003. From there, the squadron was able to immediately respond to the rocket attacks on Camp Taji, Iraq, by Iranian-backed Shia militia groups and execute retaliatory strikes. The squadron returned to Avianio Air Base, Italy, in late April as the Air Force's first major combat unit to redeploy during the China virus pandemic. Throughout their deployment, the men and women of the 555th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron and Maintenance Unit performed exceptionally under tense combat pressures executing a new and highly mobile deployment construct during a pandemic. The Triple Nickel represents the best America has to offer, and I congratulate them on a job well done. ``Once Green!''

Mr. COTTON

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