Tom Cotton

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, Vanita Gupta is President Biden's nominee to be Associate Attorney General. She is unfit for that role. She is unfit because of her radical view that every single American and every single institution in the United States is inherently racist. She is unfit because she lacks the temperament to do the job, as evidenced by her relentless attacks on the integrity and character of judges and Senators alike, seemingly anytime she had a mere disagreement with them. She is certainly unfit based on her attempts to mislead the Senate in her Judiciary Committee hearing. Ms. Gupta has been before the committee many times as a partisan advocate. There is nothing wrong with that, but her past appearances do give us a glimpse of what she believes when she isn't seeking our votes for confirmation. Less than a year ago, June of last year, she came before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify on police reform. When she was asked ``Do you believe all Americans are racist?'' she replied under oath ``Yes, I do.'' Think about that. The person nominated by Joe Biden to oversee, among other things, the Federal Government's civil rights enforcement says that she believes every single American is racist. This preposterous idea that anyone and everyone is inherently racist is at the core of the pernicious ideology pushed by the left called ``critical race theory.'' But this position was not an anomaly, a misstatement, or a new position for Mrs. Gupta. In 2005, she published an article in the Fordham Law Review on what she called ``Critical Race Lawyering.'' In that article, Ms. Gupta argued that ``the rule of law'' and ``equal justice for all'' and ``equal protection'' aren't the great bulwarks of our liberty, aren't the single achievements of our Republic and our constitutional form of government, but instead ``code words''-- that is what she called them--for some kind of twisted racism. Anyone who thinks that the rule of law or equal justice for all or equal protection are simply ``code words'' for racism is unfit for any position in our government but especially a position of leadership in the Department of Justice. The concerns with Ms. Gupta's nomination are not limited to extreme views on these topics. Ms. Gupta has made a career over the last few years on social media attacking the character and integrity of Federal judges, judicial nominees, and Members of the Senate. She accused four different jurists currently on the Supreme Court of being liars, extremists, ``dangerous,'' or ``opposed to civil and human rights.'' She must have had a macro; she just hit a shortcut button that said ``opposed to civil and human rights.'' By my count, she has leveled incendiary attacks on the integrity and character of around 50 currently sitting Federal judges. It could be more. I may have lost count when it got so high. I asked her about these attacks. While she said during her hearings that she ``regrets'' some of her rhetoric, she steadfastly refused to renounce these attacks on those judges. Ms. Gupta has leveled similarly caustic comments against Members of this body, posting online that dozens of Members of the Senate are--you guessed it--``opposed to civil and human rights.'' She accused one of our colleagues of being ``a disgrace,'' another of being a ``hypocrite,'' and another of ``failing her constituents.'' At one point, she commented: ``How many of us are done with Susan Collins's concerns?'' I want to be clear. Disagreement with or even deep dislike for Members of the Senate is not disqualifying for any position in the Federal Government. People are entitled to have their opinions. They are entitled to have their political views. But honestly, the Associate Attorney General of the United States must be able to effectively represent the United States in court while also working with Congress on important issues. It might be hard to represent the United States in court when you have accused dozens of Federal judges of being ``opposed to human and civil rights'' or being a ``disgrace'' or a ``liar.'' Likewise, I wonder what Senator Collins thinks about Vanita Gupta being done with her concerns. Perhaps most concerning, though, is that Ms. Gupta repeatedly misled the Judiciary Committee under oath. Every single Republican member of the Judiciary Committee joined a letter on March 23 outlining some of her most blatant misrepresentations that she made during her hearing, and we asked the chairman of the committee for a second hearing. That request was promptly refused. Mr. President, I asked unanimous consent that the March 23 letter be printed in the Record

Mr. COTTON. Finally, Mr. President, I have to observe something independent of Ms. Gupta herself. The discharge petition filed today requires that there has been a valid, tied vote in committee. That is the rule we all agreed to in the beginning of this Congress. Yet Ms. Gupta still has not received a valid vote in the committee. In fact, during the markup of her nomination, just minutes into my 15-minute remarks, the chairman of the committee cut off my remarks midsentence and called for a vote, in violation of committee rules. I guess somehow allowing members to finish their statements, which are guaranteed under the committees rules, had somehow become inconvenient for the scheduling preferences of our Democratic colleagues, or perhaps the committee's meeting had been mismanaged and they were worried about the 2-hour rule. It wasn't just me. My remarks were interrupted. At least one Republican Senator didn't have an opportunity to speak at all. The Democrats simply broke the rules and voted out Ms. Gupta's nomination-- not in accordance with Judiciary Committee rules. There must be consequences when the Democrats break the rules. Here is what the consequences are going to be in this case. I will refuse consent or time agreements for the nomination of any U.S. attorney from any State represented by a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. What we need to have is a valid vote in committee in accordance with the committee rules, not ramming through this nomination today. Today we are faced not only with the choice of whether Ms. Gupta is fit to be the Associate Attorney General, we are also faced with the question of whether to legitimize yet again the partisan bulldozing of the Senate's rules if those rules are even marginally inconvenient, even in committee session. Going down this path is not going to improve the Senate. I will be voting no, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, the Senate is considering the nomination of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Without question, the Senate should reject this nomination. In the midst of this pandemic, America deserves a Health Secretary who is solely--solely focused on getting shots in arms, getting kids back to school, and getting parents back to work. But that is not Mr. Becerra. Over his long career in politics, his primary passion has been ramming through a radical, far-left agenda and using the power of his office to persecute his political enemies. Mr. Becerra would be in charge of administering the Nation's health programs, but he has virtually no experience or expertise in healthcare. His only experience responding to the pandemic, as far as I can tell, has been his enforcement of California's excessive and traumatizing lockdowns over the last year. Mr. Becerra has been California's top cop, overseeing the most draconian and unconstitutional series of lockdowns anywhere in our country. He has shuttered churches while liquor stores and marijuana dispensaries remain open. He has destroyed small, family-owned businesses while enriching massive corporations. In the false name of public health, he has rigorously enforced unscientific and unproductive measures that have ruined the lives of Californians. Today, California's unemployment rate stands at 9 percent--45 percent higher than the national average, nearly two times higher than our unemployment rate in Arkansas. That is the result of bad policy. And jobless Californians have Xavier Becerra and Gavin Newsom to thank for their struggles. If Mr. Becerra's record as attorney general is any indication, every American should be alarmed by how this nominee would fight the pandemic--not with science, compassion, or common sense but with crushing political force. Few Americans believe that California's lockdown commissar deserves a promotion. Unfortunately, the Senate may just give him one. Mr. Becerra is also a vocal advocate for the socialist takeover of healthcare known euphemistically as Medicare for All. He supports destroying union healthcare plans, crushing Medicare Advantage, and ultimately taking away your health insurance on the job, which covers, I would add, 158 million Americans. This disastrous boondoggle would cost $34 trillion and would inevitably result in the rationing of care, hurting senior citizens most of all. Medicare for All would, in reality, result in Medicare for None. Last year, President Biden acknowledged that Medicare for All would yield massive tax hikes for middle-class families. Yet Joe Biden selected a supporter of this disastrous Medicare for All plan to be his top Cabinet official on healthcare. And, of course, Mr. Becerra wouldn't be a Biden administration nominee if he didn't also support open borders. But he has gone further on open borders than even most of the other Biden administration officials, saying out loud what so many Democrats silently believe. He has openly argued for the decriminalization of illegal immigration. He has even stated with a straight face that illegal immigration does absolutely no harm at all, directly or indirectly, to American citizens. If Mr. Becerra really believes that, he is hopelessly naive and needs to get out a little more. He can start by talking to the millions of Americans who are out of work or whose wages have stagnated thanks to competition from illegal aliens. He could also visit the graves of thousands of Americans killed by Mexican drugs and terrorized by gangs like MS-13. If confirmed, Mr. Becerra would oversee our Nation's response to the drug crisis and the maintenance of many migrant detention facilities. His radical open borders advocacy would make matters worse on both fronts. It would also fuel the ever-growing surge of unvetted, untested, and unvaccinated illegal aliens into our Nation, spreading the coronavirus in our communities just as it looks like we are about to turn the corner on this pandemic. Finally, Mr. Becerra holds opinions on abortion that are unacceptable, unjust, and far outside the mainstream. As a Member of Congress, he voted in favor of partial-birth abortion--a disturbing and deadly procedure performed in the very last stages of pregnancy. As California's attorney general, he tried to destroy anyone who opposed his extreme position on this issue. He brought 15 felony charges against pro-life, undercover journalists who exposed Planned Parenthood's illegal and disgusting sale of baby body parts--a move that even the liberal Los Angeles Times called ``disturbingly aggressive.'' He defended an unconstitutional law that would have forced pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to advertise for abortions, the very thing it is their mission to oppose--something that the U.S. Supreme Court called a ``serious threat'' to freedom of speech. He even sued to force an order of nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor, to purchase healthcare coverage that violated their sincerely held religious beliefs. And when he was asked about all of this in the Senate, like any bully, he tried to cover it up, denying that he sued the Little Sisters at all. If he will sue the Little Sisters, then what will he do to you and your family? A few of my colleagues have indicated that they will vote for Mr. Becerra, despite disagreeing with these radical views. Perhaps they think those are just his personal beliefs, that he won't practice what he preaches. Perhaps they think he won't undermine pro-life protections like the Hyde Amendment and use his office to persecute Catholic nuns. I would ask those colleagues to look at Mr. Becerra's record, not the words he utters to get their vote, and then to reconsider their support because any honest assessment will show that Xavier Becerra is a partisan cultural warrior who has consistently abused his office to punish his enemies and to enact far-left policies in Congress and in California. If the Senate confirms his nomination, they will be empowering Mr. Becerra to bring California's lockdowns, lawsuits, and liberal policies to all of our 50 States, and that would be a disaster for our country. I will close with a simple request for President Biden, who campaigned on unity and ending a terrible pandemic: Merely do what you said you would do. Send us a nominee who will unify the country and bring consensus, not one who will scrape by on the slimmest of majorities. Send us a nominee who is actually a healthcare expert, and the Senate will gladly consider them. Xavier Becerra is not that nominee, and the Senate should reject his nomination resoundingly. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to be Attorney General of the United States. I will oppose this nomination. I was open-minded at first about Judge Garland's nomination. He has long had a reputation as a fair- minded judge. But since being nominated, my confidence in Judge Garland has been undermined--first, by his evasive, haughty refusal to answer some of the most basic questions we would expect from an Attorney General, the kind of evasion he would never allow in his own courtroom, so why should we allow it in the U.S. Senate? And, second, when he did answer questions, he sounded more like a liberal ideologue who had embraced the radical agenda of the Democratic Party's far-left base. If confirmed, I am afraid that he will enable extremists in the Department of Justice to undermine our police, our Constitution, and our rule of law. This weak-on-crime nominee will fan the flames of our Nation's drug crisis, border crisis, and violent crime crisis. And he has made clear that on the greatest challenges facing the Department, he will cede the reins to the radical, far-left culture warriors that President Biden has nominated to be some of his top deputies. Our Nation simply cannot afford Judge Garland as our Attorney General. In the last 12 months on record, over 83,000 Americans died from drug overdoses, more than any year in history. Drug overdoses killed more Americans in a single year than the Vietnam war and the War on Terror combined. Yet Judge Garland plans to reduce prison sentences for drug dealers, traffickers, and gang members. Judge Garland appears to believe that these merchants of misery engage in a victimless trade, but virtually every family and community in our Nation bears the scars that prove otherwise. Whether it is the disabled child, addicted parent, suffering sibling, recovering neighbor, or deceased friend, the victims of drug crime are everywhere we look. Drug traffickers are hardly engaged in a nonviolent offense. Their practice is intimidation; their product is poison; and their customer service is the barrel of a gun. With Judge Garland as Attorney General, these criminals will go free. Their business will boom, and the violence and death in our streets will continue. It is not just fentanyl and heroin driving this crisis anymore. In the wake of weakening our drug trafficking laws under ill-advised laws like the First Step Act, drug overdose deaths are linked to other drugs as well, like cocaine, which is sharply increasing. Cocaine is now outpacing heroin as a leading cause of drug overdoses, and meth is outpacing both. Judge Garland will release these criminals back onto the streets in the middle of the worst drug epidemic in our Nation's history. These pain profiteers don't deserve leniency and should be kept far away from the communities they have victimized. Many should, frankly, count themselves lucky that they are not charged with murder. And while Judge Garland endorses President Biden's call for racial equity--not equality, but equity--Judge Garland's agenda will hurt vulnerable minority communities most of all. Drug overdose deaths disproportionately affect minority communities, as does violent crime. Judge Garland's confirmation, like the confirmation of some of his top deputies, would be a gift to the cartels, street gangs, and drug trafficking networks that perpetuate violence and the destruction we see in our streets. And even those who want the government to go easier on drug dealers and drug traffickers should be concerned about Judge Garland's stated plan to dismantle mandatory minimum sentences for drug traffickers. In addition to deterrence, one important justification for creating sentence ranges was to reduce racial disparities in how minority drug traffickers were sentenced. But Judge Garland doesn't stop there. He also supports President Biden's extreme open borders amnesty agenda. At Judge Garland's confirmation hearing, he was asked if entering the country illegally should be a crime. You would think that would be a very simple question. But Judge Garland responded that he hadn't ``thought about'' it--hadn't ``thought about'' it. It stretches the bounds of belief that a Federal judge who has been on the bench for almost a quarter century hadn't thought about that question--or that any American with common sense who believes in our borders and believes in our sovereignty hadn't thought whether it should be a crime to cross our border illegally. But, to give him the benefit of the doubt, I asked, in a written question after the hearing--had nearly a week to think about it; it seems like it is a pretty easy research question: Should illegally entering our country be a crime? And he said, conveniently, even then, that he hadn't thought about it. Judge Garland also refused to say whether illegal alien gang members or illegal aliens who have assaulted U.S. citizens should be deported if a judge orders it. Judge Garland's silence shows that he will, at best, meekly abide by the administration's irrational immigration agenda. He will help transform zero tolerance into total tolerance of crime, and his inaction will only further advance the administration's recruit-and-release policies at our border, where we don't just allow illegal aliens into our country after catching them at the border; we go back and find them in Mexico and invite them to return to the border and then release them into the country. This will attract an ever-growing surge of illegal migration and will result in more drugs and criminal aliens entering our country, as we see with the Biden border crisis growing worse every day. Of course, the vast majority of meth, heroin, and cocaine--and a large quantity of fentanyl--is smuggled across the southern border each year. As our border facilities and personnel are overwhelmed by the Biden border surge, our security will falter and even more drugs will pour into our Nation. Hardened criminals will accompany the flood of drugs from the Rio Grande. Thousands of confirmed and suspected gang members cross the southern border into our country, and even more will exploit the open border policies that Judge Garland will have a hand in creating. This will fuel skyrocketing violence in our Nation. Last year, we experienced the largest single increase in murder in American history--the largest single increase in murders in our country's history. Preliminary data from the FBI indicates that there was a 20-percent increase--20-percent increase--in murder nationwide. In big cities, it was even worse. Murders rose in Atlanta by 60 percent; in Chicago, by 50 percent; in New York City, by 45 percent; and in Washington, DC, by 40 percent. There were also, I would add, over 500 violent riots last year that injured over 2,000 law enforcement officers. Our police need our support more than ever before, but they wouldn't get it from a Garland Department of Justice. Personnel is policy, and Judge Garland has allowed two leftwing radicals to be selected as his chief lieutenants in the Department of Justice. Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke both support defunding, disarming, and defaming our police. They stand with the perpetrators of crime, not with the victims of it. There is little doubt that Judge Garland would empower these leftwing radicals embedded inside the Department. In response to written questions from the Judiciary Committee, Judge Garland also responded with some variation of ``I don't know''; ``I haven't studied the issue''; ``I am not familiar''; ``I haven't thought about it''; ``I am not aware of,'' or refused to comment altogether over 250 times. Again, this is a sitting Federal judge of almost a quarter century with a vast retinue of the country's best lawyers at his disposal for a week to answer written questions, and over 250 times he couldn't answer the question. That was more than one-third of the colleagues--or more than one-third of the questions that I and my colleagues asked him. Judge Garland may not have thought about these questions or thought about how to run the Justice Department, but I bet Ms. Gupta and Ms. Clarke have, and they will gladly fill this void of purpose with their radical ideology. The Garland Justice Department will make America less safe. At the same time, Judge Garland would work to weaken our Second Amendment. At his hearing, he repeatedly refused to explain how he would deal with the Second Amendment. While he acknowledged accurately that it would be tough to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling in Washington, DC, v. Heller, which affirmed Americans' constitutional right to keep and bear arms, he said that he ``can't promise''--he ``can't promise''--that he won't try to overturn it. He also said he just doesn't know whether President Biden has the authority to ban certain semiautomatic rifles, some of the most popular sporting firearms today. He doesn't know if President Biden has the authority to ban them by Executive order. He has also said he is just not familiar with whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives-- which would report to him if he is confirmed, I would remind everyone-- would have the authority to indefinitely delay approving gun sales to Americans who have not had any flags show up in their background checks. Once again, Judge Garland demonstrated through his evasion that he would bow to the radical left to the detriment of normal law-abiding American citizens. I urge every Senator who believes in the Second Amendment and the rule of law and who cares about stopping crime in our streets to reject Judge Merrick Garland's nomination for Attorney General. Now is not the time for weakness, evasion, and obfuscation from our Nation's foremost law enforcement officer. We need strength, resolve, and certainty. Our Nation needs and deserves a better nominee for Attorney General. I will oppose his nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, most Americans know that there are two sexes, male and female, and that sex is rooted in science. Most Americans also know that we ought to treat all people, including those who feel conflicted about their gender, with respect and dignity, without sacrificing the truth in the process. These beliefs are now under attack from some of the most powerful corporations in the history of the world. Just a few weeks ago, while House Democrats were passing their far-left Equality Act, the leftwing media was busy canceling Dr. Seuss, Amazon quietly erased a book from its online store without notice, without warning, without explanation. That book is ``When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment by Ryan Anderson.'' Amazon claims it banned this book for violating its brandnew policy on ``hate speech.'' Of course, that excuse is arbitrary and patently false. You can go to Amazon right now--right now you can go to Amazon on your phone or on your computer and buy copies of actually hateful books. You can get Hitler's ``Mein Kampf'' shipped to your door with free Amazon Prime delivery. You can get the ``Unabomber Manifesto,'' written by a serial killer who murdered 3 people and maimed 23 others. You can even get ``How to Blow up a Pipeline.'' I assume the title speaks for itself. All those books are available for purchase on Amazon right now, one click away. But Amazon wants you to believe that a conservative book is somehow beyond the pale, unacceptably hateful, literally worse than Hitler, as they like to say. My office asked Amazon to send us the exact passages from ``When Harry Became Sally'' that it deemed so hateful that it couldn't even sell the book on its website. Shocking surprise, I know, they never got back to us. That is because the book doesn't say anything hateful. To the contrary, the book makes very clear that we should treat people who feel conflicted about their gender with the same respect and compassion that are due to all people. To quote the author, ``We should have abundant compassion and charity and patience with people who feel this form of alienation. But we also need to insist on telling the truth . . . '' That is not hate. That is far from it. The author's real offense, his only offense, was telling the truth. He said calmly and compassionately that boys are boys and girls are girls. And the richest man in the world banned his book from his company's platform. But, of course, you don't have to agree with the commonsense historic understanding of gender in order to acknowledge how dangerous it is for one of the biggest corporations in the history of the world to start banning books because while Amazon's censorship may start with conservative views, it could easily mutate to censor other views that offend Jeff Bezos and his bottom line. Perhaps Amazon will come after union organizers next since they are trying to bust up a union election in Alabama or maybe environmental activists or maybe trustbusters, since so many people are talking about potential antitrust violations in the world of Big Tech. And even if Amazon goes only this far and no further, the damage of free speech has already been done. Books like ``When Harry Became Sally'' won't get published anymore. Writers who hold unfashionable opinions that just a few days ago were considered basic mainstream views of a large majority of Americans, may decide to self-censor, stay silent. The virtual book burning may spread to other companies. Maybe Amazon will put a book burning app on its Kindle so readers can drag books from its catalog into the virtual bonfire. Political correctness will only grow more oppressive if its enforcers, like Amazon, don't face some consequences for their actions. Amazon, for instance, makes billions of dollars each year hosting websites and storing data for the government. Almost all of Amazon's profit is made in these enterprise services, not in its consumer-facing retail business. Those are our tax dollars flowing to a company that uses its power to censor the beliefs of a large majority of Americans. Perhaps it is time for lawmakers to reconsider whether these contracts are in the best interest of our country. I also note Amazon is the country's largest bookseller, selling three out of every four e-books in America. It is time for lawmakers to evaluate whether Amazon's practices are consistent with our antitrust laws or whether antitrust laws need to be updated to address this type of behavior from a monopolistic firm. We better hurry, though, because maybe they will ban all books on antitrust and monopoly behavior before we have a chance to study the question. I will close by quoting from the book that Amazon banned, which predicted the very events we are witnessing here today: If trans activists succeed in their political agenda, our nation's children will be indoctrinated in a harmful ideology, and some will live by its own lies about their own bodies, at great harm to themselves physically, psychologically, and socially. Lives will be ruined, but pointing out the damage will be forbidden. Dissent from the transgender worldview will be punished in schools, workplaces, and medical clinics. Trying to live in accordance with the truth will be made harder. This is not a fight over hate or bigotry, respect or compassion. It is a battle over truth itself, the truth of who we are as human beings and the fundamental freedom to speak that truth or any other truth without fear. Throughout our history, Americans have never surrendered to an oppressive tyranny of opinion, whether a majority or, in this case, a small but highly influential minority, and we won't be cowed in silence today. We will fight for what is true. We will fight for the freedom to say it. No matter what the cultural forces arrayed against us do, we will never back down. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk, and I ask that it be reported.

Mr. COTTON. The immigration system is broken because the Democratic Party will not enforce our borders. You see that with the Biden border crisis right now. We can fix one small part of it by stopping Federal bailout dollars from going to cities and States that refuse to cooperate with Federal law enforcement. Vote on Motion to Commit I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate, equally divided.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, my motion to commit is to send this bill back to the Finance Committee to adopt the commonsense rule that should have been in there from the beginning that we are not going to give bailout money to sanctuary States and sanctuary cities. Now, to whom are the States and cities giving sanctuary? Criminal illegal aliens. Where is the sanctuary for their victims? Why should cities and States that refuse to cooperate with Federal law enforcement receive Federal bailouts? They should not. I reserve my time.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, today, the Senate will vote on Linda Thomas-Greenfield's nomination to be Ambassador to the United Nations. I will oppose her nomination. The United Nations is a troubled institution. Too often, the U.N. is, at its best, a feckless debating society, but at worst--and that is more common, sadly--an apologist for tyranny, corruption, and hypocrisy. Our Ambassador must give voice to our interests, priorities, and the conscience of the United States and regularly confront our enemies on the world stage. This position requires foresight, judgment, and courage, the courage to speak truth in a den of liars. Unfortunately, Ms. Thomas-Greenfield hasn't demonstrated these qualities when it comes to the world's most notorious liar: Communist China. Little more than a year ago, Ms. Thomas-Greenfield delivered a speech at a China-funded Confucius Institute at Savannah State University. In her remarks, she could have condemned China's economic regression, denounced China for flooding our streets with deadly drugs like fentanyl, objected to their ethnic cleansing of Uighurs and Tibetans, called for Beijing to uphold its international commitments to Hong Kong's autonomy, or criticized their predatory lending practices in Africa. Instead, she praised China. She excused their behavior in Africa and said there is much the United States can learn from China. It is beyond me how anyone, especially a seasoned diplomat, could utter such a grotesque line. America has nothing to learn from a genocidal, Communist tyranny. She excused China's debt-trap diplomacy and said she could ``see no reason'' why China couldn't help spread values that included ``good governance, gender equity, and the rule of law.'' Gender equity? Would that include China's barbaric one-child policy, which led to the elimination of millions of unborn girls over decades of sex-selection abortion or China's policy of systematic rape of religious and ethnic minority women in Xinjiang Province? Gender equity, indeed. She showed a similar lack of tact and understanding on the subject of trade with China. She asserted that the United States and China should simply ``come to an understanding'' without uttering a sentence, not a word, not even a syllable of criticism of China's unrestricted and illegal economic aggression against our workers and our companies. She also asserted that ``we are not in a [new] Cold War'' with China. This statement, along with the rest of her speech, shows a strategic blindness that is disqualifying for a senior foreign policy post. Ms. Thomas-Greenfield has expressed regret for her speech, and some people say a single speech shouldn't define an entire career, but this isn't some ancient speech dug up from a long-lost era by political opponents. She gave it just 16 months ago. The whole world knew--and certainly a career diplomat would have known--about China's long, dark, lamentable catalog of crimes against America, international order and stability, and its own people. And these remarks were not isolated mistakes or a slip of the tongue. This nominee has spent years minimizing the threat of China's actions in Africa and has spoken repeatedly in favor--in favor of China's Belt and Road Initiative, which is a transparent ploy to spread Communist Chinese influence into other countries. And the Biden administration's attempts to excuse this speech have done her no favors. After her speech came to light, President Biden's transition team stated that Ms. Thomas-Greenfield was ``repulsed'' by what she saw at the Confucius Institute. Really? Repulsed? If that were true, why didn't she speak out then? Why did she keep the money from the speech? Either President Biden's team is misleading the public or this nominee failed to speak up when it mattered most on another occasion. Neither possibility reflects favorably on the administration or the nominee. To be honest, I doubt that Ms. Thomas-Greenfield or the administration are particularly ``repulsed'' by Confucius Institutes. That is why, after all, in his first week in office, President Biden withdrew a rule that would force universities to disclose their secret agreements with Confucius Institutes. This was an unnecessary, undeserved, and unwise gift to China, as well as a payoff to higher education, a client and a patron of the Democratic Party. Many colleges have become addicted to Chinese Communist money, and the Biden administration isn't about to shut off that gravy train. After all, Joe Biden's son Hunter takes Chinese money, so how could he object to liberal universities taking Chinese money? I will conclude by saying that in the last month, we have witnessed a gradual erosion of America's resolve in confronting China. This nomination is just another signal of weakness to Beijing. Supporters of Ms. Thomas-Greenfield's nomination can pretend that this dove has talons, but any fairminded observer, and especially those in Beijing, know that is not true. I will oppose the nomination I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, No. 66, and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, last year, in certain fringe quarters of the Democratic Party, it seemed popular to call for packing the Supreme Court--for expanding the number of Justices on the Court--because you don't like their political rulings. Now, obviously, all Republicans opposed such a radical idea. Yet many Democratic politicians, to include Joe Biden and to include a few Senators in this Chamber tonight, contorted themselves to avoid taking a position on this issue. They twisted themselves into pretzels on the campaign trail to simply say that we ought not pack the Supreme Court because we don't like their rulings. I offer a simple amendment, an amendment that is backed by famous liberals like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that we should not pack the Supreme Court. Now, I understand the Democrats are going to raise a point of order, saying this is not germane--yet more contortions to avoid taking a simple stance on this issue. So I would invite my Democratic colleagues who have said they don't want to pack the Court to simply waive this point of order, and let's have an up-or-down vote on one of the most fundamental tenets of the rule of law--that you do not pack the Court because you don't like the way they rule. I yield back my time, and I encourage your support.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, in accordance with section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of all applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of amendment No. 66. Vote on Motion to Waive Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, on Wednesday, just moments after Joe Biden took office, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs sanctioned 28 members of the outgoing administration, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien, and UN Ambassador Kelly Craft. According to Chinese State media, these Trump administration officials were guilty of ``crazy moves which gravely interfered in China's internal affairs.'' Those ``crazy moves'' include presumably condemning the Chinese Communist Party's genocidal campaign against religious minorities in Xinjiang Province or its atheistic crackdown on Chinese Christians. In addition to interfering, these officials allegedly offended the Chinese people and seriously disrupted U.S.- China relations. I guess that refers to some, such as Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar, who traveled to Taiwan. Under the new sanctions, these officials are now barred from entering China, but more important and more ominous, institutions associated with them are also restricted from doing business with China. Now, it is tempting to laugh off these sanctions, as I did last summer when China sanctioned me. You know you won't have a second honeymoon in Wuhan or you will have to vacation in a nongenocidal country. But these sanctions are no laughing matter. They are not bluster. They are another step in China's long-term campaign to coerce Americans at every level of government and business. They are a direct attack on the independence of U.S. policy toward China and an attempt to blackmail the Biden administration with personal financial ruin in the future if they dare to stand up to the Chinese Communist Party. Some may start to think about the potential damage to their future, and they may start to sweat a little bit. Now, you may say: Good. I am glad that former government officials can't cash in on their service and go to influence-peddling firms like WestExec or Albright Stonebridge and sell access to the Chinese. I might even agree with that point, but consider a few other hypotheticals. The Chinese State media singled out book publishers as just one example of who could pay the price. Many public officials like to write memoirs, and these memoirs often add a lot to our understanding of current events, but Chinese State media singled out book publishers as an example of companies that would be banned from China if they associated with sanctioned individuals. In fact, China has already used American books as pawns in the trade war with the United States. So will major publishing houses really risk losing access to the Chinese market for all their other titles to strike a book deal with, say, a former Biden Cabinet official who was tough on China and ended up getting sanctioned? It is unclear but, I would say, doubtful. Other public officials practice at big law firms. And I know that we all make jokes about lawyers, but it is an honorable profession. There is nothing wrong with practicing at a big law firm, and they may plan to return to their firms after the administration is over. A lot of those firms have clients with close ties to China. And even if a former public official has no client with any business in China, will those law firms really take back their old employees if it means potentially losing valuable clients who are afraid of angering the Chinese Communist Party? Again, I would say it is unclear but, perhaps, doubtful. Once you consider these hypotheticals and others that don't involve influence peddling or anything untoward, you can begin to see the insidious consequences of these new sanctions. Beijing wants to scare the Biden administration into doing its bidding, and they want to scare U.S. businesses into blacklisting any official who irritates the Chinese Communist Party. Therefore, I call on the Biden administration to treat these sanctions as a day-one assault on the independence of its foreign policy by denouncing this intimidation in the strongest possible terms. But as the Chinese Communist Party is determined to prove, actions speak louder than words, so I also call upon President Biden to act reciprocally by sanctioning Chinese officials who are responsible for this blackmail campaign against his administration. Those officials shouldn't be able to ferret away their fortunes in the U.S. banking system the way so many corrupt Chinese oligarchs do, nor should their princeling children get degrees from our top universities or internships at prestigious Washington think tanks. President Biden should also refuse to nominate for senior positions individuals who are professionally or financially entangled with China, who could be compromised by the mere threat of sanctions. Finally, President Biden should determine whether Chinese Ambassador Cui Tiankai was involved in these sanctions, and if so, he should be expelled immediately for this egregious effort to subvert American foreign policy. And that is just for the short term. America must also begin to disentangle our economy from China, to decouple our economies. The Chinese Communist Party sanctions pose a threat only because American society is so deeply compromised by Chinese influence. American corporations, the big banks, think tanks, universities, film studios, even our sports leagues--even LeBron James--are all addicted to Chinese cash. They are all part of a new China lobby that is deeply invested in the status quo and, thus, hostile to any efforts to redefine U.S.-China relations in America's interest. This lobby makes their money in China. They make their products in China. They have made their bed in China, and now they are all vulnerable to pressure from the Chinese Government. America hasn't been in such a bind since our earliest days, when our young Republic was encircled by hostile imperial powers. Even during the Cold War, America had few entanglements of the sort we face today. The United States had very little trade with the Russians. We competed in separate lanes, like runners in a race. The new Cold War with China isn't so orderly. Communist China is wealthier and has more people than did Soviet Russia, and our economies have become deeply entangled. These new sanctions are just the latest example of how that entanglement threatens our security and prosperity. Here is how the United States can beat China in this strategic competition. First, the United States should impose restrictions on inbound and outbound investment with China. Wall Street has financed China's industrial and technological development for more than four decades and has become compromised for the bargain. That has to end. Second, the United States should move supply chains for critical goods, such as semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, out of China and back to American soil. China, today, may be the so-called factory of the world, but it was corporate America, with its Army of bankers and lawyers and consultants, who built that factory. That has got to end as well. Third, the United States must restrict the flow of knowledge and advanced technology between our country and China. American colleges, universities, and research laboratories are the finest in the world, but they allow Chinese nationalists to participate, even in cutting- edge research with military applications. This research has an alarming tendency to end up in China, in the weapons fielded by the People's Liberation Army against our own troops. That information pipeline needs to be shut off, and many of those Chinese nationalists need to go. None of these steps will be easy, but the Chinese Communist Party's punitive sanctions against Trump administration officials and his blackmail campaign against the Biden administration officials demonstrate that decoupling our economies is both necessary and urgent. The Communists in Beijing have lulled too many Americans into complacency and dependency over the course of many years. They now intend to blackmail even our government into inaction. Our intention must be different. The United States must break free of the Chinese Communist's suffocating grasp, fight back, and win. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the end of my remarks the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, be recognized.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, for the information of other Senators who want to know if we have a vote tonight specifically on the nomination of Avril Haines to be Director of National Intelligence, I was the last person to object to holding that vote. I no longer object. I wanted to have a question for the record answered. Miss Haines, thankfully, responded to my question yesterday. I want to thank Senator Rubio and Senator Warner for helping us get that answer. Specifically, in her open session yesterday, she gave an answer to Senator Wyden that suggested the intelligence community might reopen investigations into detention interrogation programs from 2001 to 2006. She clarified, in the private setting that we had, that she had no intention to open up those investigations and expose operations officers inside the CIA to criminal prosecution or adverse employment action or even holding it against them in potential future promotions or placements. She has confirmed that in the written record. I am glad to see that we are not going to reopen that period. I want to thank Ms. Haines for providing the answer. Most importantly, I want to thank our brave operations and paramilitary operations officers in the CIA for what they do, always, to keep this country safe. I am ready to vote on this nomination. I believe the rest of the Senate is as well. I yield back the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Toomey and thank him for his expertise, for his foresight, and for his courage on the issue of ending these CARES Act-funded Federal Reserve programs. You have probably seen that over the last few days, he has been subjected to an onslaught of vicious, dishonest attacks by Democrats and their stenographers in the Press Gallery, saying that he was somehow gumming up the works, that we were not going to pass this bill because the Toomey language was stopping it. Nothing could be further from the truth. First off, while Senator Toomey may be our thought leader on this issue, this was the Senate Republican conference's position. That is why our majority leader stood firm behind it. Second, as Senator Toomey said, this is not a new issue; this is not something we just started debating. We had versions of this in our bill this summer. As he laid out, the minority leader and the Speaker of the House had a version of it in their $3.4 trillion this summer as well. The minority leader sent a letter about it. This has been at the heart of this legislation's debate for months. And the fact that it was in their legislation, it was in their letter--they kept saying that we wanted to somehow sabotage the economic recovery--just goes to show you what their intents were with these programs. It was to use them, as Senator Toomey said, as political slush funds; use them to bail out--I don't know--New York State or the city of New York; use them to impose politically correct policies on companies that could come to the Fed and get low- or no-interest-rate loans if they danced to the woke left's tune. Senator Toomey and Senate Republicans drew the line on this. We drew the line on politicizing the Fed. We had no intent whatsoever to harm the Fed's background ability to take emergency action, and we will be prepared in the future, as Congresses in the past have been, in an economic crisis to act as well, just like we have twice in the last 12 years--2008 and 2020. But nothing you have read in the news about Senator Toomey and his language that he carried on behalf of the Senate Republican conference could be further from the truth. I want to thank him for standing strong, and I want to thank the majority leader for standing strong on this as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, one of the most solemn eulogies any man can deliver is for a fallen officer killed in the line of duty. Senator Boozman and I have delivered too many of these eulogies already, and we regret that we must do so again, but we want to celebrate the life and service of Police Officer Travis Wallace of the Helena-West Helena Police Department, who died last month at age 41, while attempting to bring a murder suspect into custody. Officer Wallace and his partner recognized the dangerous suspect in a vehicle in a motel parking lot. They conducted a traffic stop. The suspect got out of his vehicle and immediately opened fire. Officer Wallace bravely and skillfully returned fire, causing the suspect to flee, but it was too late. He had already suffered grave wounds. He passed away later at the hospital, despite the valiant effort of doctors to save his life. Officer Wallace believed that policing was his life's calling. He had worked in law enforcement for almost a decade, including 5 years with the Helena-West Helena Police Department, before his life was so tragically cut short. In that brief time, Officer Wallace established himself as a leader and not just in his department. He was also a loving father, son, and brother, known for his sense of humor and his ability to make people smile. And he was a man of faith, serving as a deacon at St. Luke Missionary Baptist Church. Officer Wallace served his community with honor. Tragically, he is the fourth law enforcement officer from Arkansas killed this year and the 279th officer nationwide. Like every officer, he dedicated his life to protect and defend his community. That commitment takes courage. It requires officers to run toward danger--to approach dangerous men when every human instinct might scream to run away. Officer Wallace did his job and did his duty with honor. Now his watch has ended, but we will always remember the great sacrifice he made to keep his community and our State safe. May he rest in peace. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, the U.S. Air Force's 389th Fighter Squadron--known, respected, and feared around the globe as the Thunderbolts--flew downrange from the 366th Fighter Wing at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho to support Operations Inherent Resolve and Spartan Shield from October 2019 until June 2020. Led by Lt. Col. Rod ``Brick'' James, the squadron of F-15E Strike Eagles deployed to the United States Central Command area of responsibility for the fight against the Islamic State. During its historic combat deployment, the T-Bolts employed 263 munitions of myriad types during over 2,600 sorties and a record 13,000 combat hours throughout CENTCOM. Demonstrating the rapid, agile, and lethal characteristics of airpower, the 389th executed close air support for troops in Syria and Iraq. In addition to CAS, the Squadron Weapons section loaded the first Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, AGM-158, expended in combat by the 366th Fighter Wing, for just one of a host of special missions. All the while a deterrent, the T-Bolts stood ready to defeat Iranian aggression if the call came. Finally, they stayed in the fight 50 percent longer than planned to ensure COVID-19 did not cause any loss of support to those who needed Strike Eagles overhead. Throughout their deployment, the men and women of the 389th Fighter Squadron and Aircraft Maintenance Unit performed exceptionally under intense combat pressures executing a new, highly mobile deployment construct during a pandemic. The Thunderbolts represent the best America has to offer. They ride hard, shoot straight, and always speak the truth. I join all grateful Americans in congratulating this outstanding team on a job well done. Banzai.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, Arkansas is known as the Natural State, and few have been more dedicated to preserving Arkansas in all of its natural beauty than was Joe Morgan. Joe passed away last month at the age of 76. Joe was a lifelong Arkansan. He studied at Little Rock University--now the University of Arkansas-Little Rock--and he worked for many years as a car dealer for great American companies like General Motors and Chevrolet. He also served on the Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission. But Joe will probably be remembered most for his tireless advocacy on behalf of Arkansas' natural heritage and environment. Governor Hutchinson appointed Joe to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, where he quickly established himself as a champion for Arkansas duck hunters and the wilderness upon which they rely. Joe hunted and fished in Stuttgart, the duck capital of the world. As a member of the commission, he made it his mission to ensure duck hunting remained a gentleman's sport and to preserve the hunting grounds he knew and loved so they would be available to future generations of Arkansans. He was especially passionate about preserving Bayou Meto Waterfowl Management Area, one of the crown jewels of duck hunting in Arkansas. He was instrumental in implementing safe boating regulations to protect hunters and waterfowl populations alike. He imposed time limits on when boats could be out on the water to preserve the health and sustainability of the duck population. Joe's first priority was always to his fellow Arkansans. He pressed for limits on when nonresidents could hunt to ensure that locals were never pushed out of the hunting spots they grew up with. Joe's fellow commissioners will remember him as a dogged defender of hunting and fishing in Arkansas. His wife of 56 years, Judy, and his son, Brett, will remember him as a loving husband and father who was always ready with a joke--and always ready for a good shoot, a round of golf, or even a jaunt in his trusty Cessna 182. As for me, I will remember Joe as a friend. I met Joe in my early campaigns, and we became fast friends. We talked and texted often. He even hosted me, with friends, in North Carolina to speak about Republican politics. Joe Morgan may have left us, but he left his heart in Arkansas--in the well-stocked, flooded timber of Bayou Meto, which he helped to preserve. In a fitting tribute to his legacy, Joe passed away on the opening day for duck hunting in Arkansas. Every hunter who enjoys Arkansas' natural beauty this season and every season in the future can thank Joe for the experience. May he rest in peace. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.