Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I object.

Mr. GRAHAM

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have been listening today and a few other days, I think, about Senator Gillibrand's efforts to bring up what I think is a major reform of the military justice system to the point where you won't recognize it as it is today. I hope you understand what we are being asked to do here. Senator Reed, who is the chairman of the committee, has been objecting. Before I got here, I was a military lawyer and Active Duty in the Reserves for about 33 years. I was a prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge. What I would like to challenge this body to do is find me cases where the judge advocate has recommended prosecution in a sexual assault case in the last 8 years and the commander refused to go forward. I was in the military JAG Corps for 33 years. I can only remember one time where that was even an issue. Previous efforts to reform the system work like the following: If the JAG recommends prosecution in a sexual assault case as defined in the last piece of legislation and they refuse to go forward, it is taken to the commander's commander. So what problem are we trying to solve here? What we are doing in this bill is relieving the chain of command when it comes to military justice. If the commander no longer is concerned about sexual assaults in the barracks, we made a huge mistake. The heart and soul of the military justice system is to provide a fair trial to the accused, take care of victims, but give the commander the tools they need for good order and discipline. So the idea of taking the commander out of the chain of command when it comes to terrible things like sexual assault I think is a bad idea because it is the commander's job to make sure that unit works well. Having a bunch of professional prosecutors make the decision without the commander being involved is basically relieving the commander of what is best for that unit overall. Sexual assault is a problem in the military. It is a problem in the civilian world. It is a problem all over the place. But the military justice system is designed to bring about good order and discipline. I can only say that the day that the commander is taken out of the responsibility for what happens in that unit is a bad day for good order and discipline and I think a bad day for that unit. Again, the legal advice given to commanders in cases like we are talking about is almost universally followed. There have probably been more occasions where a commander will take an iffy case to court just to make the point--cases that would never probably get off first base in the civilian world. But the people pushing this bill always talk about results and courts-martial. I think the worst thing the U.S. Senate could do is create an impression that a not-guilty verdict is unacceptable in the military. Sometimes a not-guilty verdict is the right answer to the situation presented to the court. I am beginning to doubt whether or not you can get a fair trial in the military if you are accused of one of these crimes. When politicians attack results in the system, we are sending a pretty clear signal: If you are a court-martial panel member, we are going to be grading your homework here in the Senate, because there seems to be a bias that the only outcome must be a guilty verdict. The truth of the matter is that a lot of women go to their graves having been assaulted and never having reported the events to anybody. We need to make it easier for victims to come forward. On occasion, people are accused of things they didn't do, and I have been involved in many of these cases. On occasion, you will find that the accusation doesn't hold water--not sufficient to be anywhere near being beyond a reasonable doubt--and sometimes people say things that are just flat not true. So what I worry about is that, in our effort to reform the system to solve a problem that really doesn't exist--commanders ignoring the JAGs and not prosecuting people because they like them or they have favoritism is not a problem. If you want to talk about reforming the military justice system, fine, but let's don't stand here in the U.S. Senate and say that commanders in the military routinely turn down legal advice to prosecute. They don't. That is just not true. In the military, in a general court-martial, you need three-fourths to convict. If we are going to go down this track of talking about what an acceptable outcome should be, then I am going to start introducing legislation to change the requirement of the verdict to be unanimous. I was a prosecutor for 4\1/2\ years and a defense attorney for 2. I understand sort of the military courtroom environment. The panel members--the members of the jury--are commissioned officers or you can request noncommissioned officers, and the accused has that right up to a certain percentage of the panel. These panels are constructed not like a civilian court; they are constructed to make sure that the jury usually comes from the officer corps, and people with the responsibility for that base are picked to serve on these juries to make sure that the base is being well run, that people receive justice who have been violated, and that those accused of a crime have a fair trial. The worst thing that can happen is when a commander seems to have favorites and the people he likes get away with almost anything and the people the commander doesn't like--well, they look for reasons to come down hard on them. When I was a young JAG, I would go talk to commanders and first sergeants. The worst thing you can do to a unit is play favorites. Call them as you see them. You need to show up in the middle of the night in the barracks--the commander and first sergeant--when they least think you are going to come, and just let people know you are watching them. Most enlisted people are 18 to 22 years old, and it is their first time away from home. We have made some strides that I think are good. We provide victims of sexual assault in the military with their own individual counsel. Most people don't get that in the civilian world. We are trying to train prosecutors on how to handle these cases, and I like that. Yet, if we are going to start creating a presumption here--contrary to being innocent--that there is only one right answer, then we need to start training a bunch of defense attorneys and have a specialty there. The worst thing that could happen in a military unit is for somebody to be assaulted and to be treated poorly, and nothing happens. Second to that is for somebody to be accused of something that is seen as being not legitimate. That is why you have trials. That is why you have defense attorneys. That is why you have judges. That is why you have prosecutors. The thing that is unique about the military is that it is not a jury of your peers. The jury is made up of the officer corps on that base who has the responsibility, usually, to run the base. You can request, as an enlisted member, that part of the panel be enlisted, but they are going to be the more senior ranks on the base. They are not going to be E-3s and E-4s. They are going to be E-8s and E-9s. They are going to be the senior enlisted corps, who is responsible for good order and discipline and morale on the base. That is what is unique about the military justice system. I found, as a defense attorney, that people look long and hard at the government's case. I will talk later on about some cases I had wherein people were accused of using drugs by urinalysis. The system was fatally flawed, and over time the military justice system got that right. I just want Senator Reed to know that, on slowing this train down and getting the Members of this body to understand what we are talking about, I will support him more. I should be down here talking more. Like everybody else, we are busy. I promise to come down more to give my side of what we should be thinking about in terms of reform and why what is before us is not reform; it is a radical change to the military justice system based on, I think, a premise that doesn't exist. The one thing I want you to know is there are a handful of cases a year in the Army, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Navy on which the commander refuses to go forward after the JAGs have recommended a court-martial in sexual assault cases. That is what we are all supposed to be worried about--that the system is biased against victims. What can we do to make it easier to report these situations? What can we do to convince people that the command is not going to turn on you if you are a victim? These are all legitimate things, but to fire the entire chain of command based on a premise that, I think, doesn't hold water would be bad and would, over time, undercut the military's ability to maintain good order and discipline and to be an effective fighting force. Senator Reed is the chairman of the committee, and I will try to do more to help him. I respect Senator Gillibrand a lot, and she is very passionate about this. All I can say is that passion and justice have to be measured, and we have to be making decisions based on facts, not just on an outcome that we would like. When we start talking about a case wherein somebody was acquitted and as if that was the wrong result, that scares the hell out of me. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, a vote-arama is upon us. Stay hydrated. Try to keep good cheer. We are going to have lots of amendments today and kind of talk about where we differ on certain things, which will be good for the country. What I hate the most is that we are doing a partisan COVID bill for the first time as a nation, and I don't know why because on March 5, 2020, 96 to 1, we appropriated $8 billion when we had just begun to understand what COVID was about; March 18, $355 billion, 90 to 8; March 25, $1.9 trillion. So March 5 and 25, we spent well over $2 trillion, with the average vote 96 to 1, 90 to 8, and 96 to 0. In April we spent $355 billion by voice vote; September 30, 2020, $8 billion, 84 to 10; December 21, 2020, $1.04 trillion, 92 to 6. So it is not like we can't work together on COVID. You had a Republican President, you had a Republican Senate, and a Democratic House, and we were able to come together as a nation. But that is all over now because my Democratic colleagues have chosen to go another way because they can. They have all the power. They have the House, the Senate, and the White House. They have chosen to do a $1.9 trillion package without any effort at all, in my view, to try to find common ground. Ninety percent of this money has got zero to do with COVID. It is a liberal wish list, and every time Senator Schumer says it is not, it makes me believe it is. So another point for the American people: Of all the money I just described to you that we appropriated in a bipartisan fashion, we haven't spent it all yet, but we are going to spend $1.9 trillion even though we haven't spent the earlier money. Of the administrative actions, we have got still $200 billion left to spend. Of the legislative appropriations, we appropriated $4.1 trillion; we have got a trillion we haven't spent yet, but we are going to spend $1.9 trillion more before we spend what we spent in the past. The Federal Reserve set aside $5.9 trillion to help business. They have only spent $2.8 trillion, so there is a lot more capability there. The economy is showing signs of life. The vaccine is out. Things are looking better. It seems to me we would want to slow down and wisely spend the money not spent before we embark on a $1.9 trillion spending spree. Most of it doesn't have much to do, if anything, with COVID. They are doing it because they can, and there will be a lot of amendments talking about better ways to spend this money. The minimum wage has been dropped out, but here is what is in this bill: $20 million for the preservation and maintenance of Native American languages. That might be something we want to do, but we should go through the appropriations process, have hearings, not put it on a COVID bill. And $135 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. It may be something we want to do, but not on a COVID bill. And $135 million for the National Endowment for Humanities. Again, the same concept. About $200 million for the Institute of Museum and Library Services. What has that got to do with COVID? Nothing. PPP loans for labor unions, paid leave fund for Federal employees, an $86 billion bailout for union pensions. What has that got to do with COVID? Nothing. And $350 billion for blue States. We changed the formula under this bill--dramatically different than the one we passed 96 to 0. So I could go on and on. Money for schools. Most of the money in this bill--$129 billion for K-12--only $6.4 billion is to be distributed this year. Most of the money is spent from 2022 to 2028. Hopefully we will get control of COVID by 2028. Again, this is an opportunity to spend money on things not related to COVID because they have the power to do so. It is going to be a long day. We are going to be talking about reprioritizing money. We are going to try to strike provisions from this bill, money that comes from hard-working taxpayers, being spent in a way unrelated to COVID. So stay tuned. Keep good cheer. Stay hydrated. But this is a debate worth having, and I regret very much that we could not find common ground here. To find it, you have to seek it. And this is the one area where we were doing a pretty damn good job, I thought, working together as Republicans and Democrats, spending a lot of money because there was a need out there. Today we are going to spend a lot of money, most of it not related to COVID, and it is going to be along partisan lines. It is unfortunate, but it is the choice my Democratic colleagues made. And we are going to hold them to that choice. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President I would like to call up amendment No. 1369, as modified, and ask it be reported by number. Additional Cosponsor I ask that Senator Hagerty be added as cosponsor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask for 2 minutes, equally divided.

Mr. GRAHAM. The Republicans yield back their time.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the budgetary effects of the pending amendment, 972, offered by Senator Sanders, are merely incidental to the nonbudgetary effects of the amendment. Accordingly, the amendment is extraneous. Therefore, I raise a point of order against this measure pursuant to section 313(b)1(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. GRAHAM. There was a time about a year ago when we were together, and we passed a COVID relief bill of $1.9 trillion, 96 to nothing. What happened? You all got it now. So here is what I want you to know. That CARES formula, that bill we passed, had an allocation for State and local funding that has been changed by our Democratic friends, and the biggest winners are New York and California. So the formula they are using now, New York and California wins big. You need to check what you are doing because you are giving a lot of money to New York and California because they can do it. This is a big State bailout. You need to check and explain to people back in your State why they need more money than you do. You are rewarding people who have closed down the economy, won't reopen, so I am asking to go back to the bipartisan formula, reject this partisan formula that rewards Democratic blue States at the expense of most everybody else in this building. So if you don't know how your State is doing, we know how your State is doing, and you will hear about it.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will try to be relatively brief here. I understand the bill is being printed now, and we will have a vote here fairly shortly. I just want to set the stage for my view--my point of view. I think I speak for most people in our conference on what we are trying to do here. Up until now, we have been able, as a body, to work together on COVID relief. And the question is, Why can't we do it again? I think I know the answer, but I want to remind people what we have done in a bipartisan fashion. On March 5, 2020, when we had President Trump, a Republican Senate, and a Democratic House, we approved $8 billion, 96 to 1, and we were just beginning to understand the virus; March 18, a few weeks later, $355 billion, 90 to 8; March 25, $1.9 trillion, 96 to 0. So from March 5 to March 25, we passed three bills, well over $2 trillion, 96 to 1, 90 to 8, and 96 to 0. So I would argue to the American people that it is not like the Republican Party and the Democratic Party can't work together when it comes to COVID relief. But now that the Democrats have the House, the Senate, and the White House, there seems to be no desire to go down that road, and I will talk about that in a minute. April 21, 2020, we did $355 billion more. That was by voice vote. Spending $355 by voice vote is pretty astonishing; $1.9 trillion, 96 to 0 is pretty astonishing. September 30, 2020, 84 to 10. December 21, just a few months ago, we spent another trillion, 92 to 6. Why do I bring this up? I bring it up to show there is plenty of bipartisanship around COVID relief, and that bipartisanship has stopped. President Biden made a big deal about wanting to bring the country together and find common ground. In the one area that we actually had common ground, we have abandoned common ground to deal with a $1.9 trillion package just months after we authorized $1.04 trillion. Here is the problem I think Republicans have. Of the $1.9 trillion being proposed now, about 90 percent of it has very little to do with COVID. It is a liberal wish list. The reason I know it is a liberal wish list is that Senator Schumer said 15 times yesterday--about 15 times--that it wasn't a liberal wish list. If Senator Schumer is saying it is not a liberal wish list, it is a liberal wish list. I will be able to prove that in more detail. That is the history of bipartisanship. That bipartisanship has been destroyed. We had 10 Republicans, I think, go to the White House to offer around $700 billion that would extend checks, that would do vaccines, would do a lot of things that we think we need to still do, but that went nowhere. Another point for the American people: We are going to a partisan approach to COVID for the first time. I went over the amount of money we have appropriated to the COVID problems the country has experienced, and here is what I want you to understand. We are going to spend $1.9 trillion in a partisan fashion. I think a lot of it is very much unrelated to COVID simply because they have the power to do it. They now have the power of the Federal Government, complete power-- control of the Senate, control of the House, control of the White House. They have abandoned bipartisanship. We had the Presidency and the Senate; they had the House. We were able to work together. Now they have it all. They are running us over, literally, legislatively here. I think we have made reasonable offers. Nobody is willing to compromise. They see this as a moment to do a lot of things they have been wanting to do for years that have nothing to do with COVID. Another problem they have, in my view, is you are appropriating $1.9 trillion, most of it not related to COVID, and we haven't spent the money we have allocated in the past. So administrative actions--there is still $200 billion that we haven't spent. Legislative actions, $3.1 trillion we have spent. We have appropriated $4.1 trillion. There is still $1 trillion that hasn't been spent yet. The Federal Reserve actions allowed $5.9 trillion to be allocated to help businesses that were failing. They spent $2.8 trillion. The vaccine is getting out by the day. We are hopeful that we can change the course of the virus, get people back to work. In this bill, they do a lot of things unrelated to COVID because they can. Why are we opposed to this? Because it is a lot of money that is being spent on things unrelated to COVID. We haven't spent the money we appropriated in past efforts yet, but we are going to spend $1.9 trillion more. I think it is very unfortunate, and I hope the American people understand that this is spending money for the sake of spending money, not to combat COVID. Let me give you some examples of what is in this bill. The minimum wage dropped out. Now is the worst possible time, I think, to go to $15-an-hour minimum wage. Just think about your own communities. How many restaurants and hotels have had to reduce or close down because of COVID restrictions? We are finally beginning to come out of it a bit. To add a $15-an-hour mandate, doubling the minimum wage, would be increasing the cost of doing business after the government at the State and local levels shut the businesses down. So the business has been reduced in terms of revenue because of COVID restrictions, and now the Federal Government is going to mandate a doubling of the minimum wage that the business has to absorb and pass on to consumers. That is out. We can raise the minimum wage in a responsible fashion once we get COVID under control. There was $100 million for a Silicon Valley underground rail project that didn't pass the smell test. The only reason that is out is we made a big deal about it. But they saw the COVID package as a chance to put $100 million into a Silicon Valley underground rail project, which shows you their mindset toward this bill. This bill is not about fighting COVID. It is about a chance, in a partisan fashion, to do things they couldn't do otherwise. There was $1.5 million from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund regarding the Seaway International Bridge in New York. The Silicon Valley underground rail project may make sense. Senator Schumer's bridge project may make sense. We are going to do an infrastructure bill. It seems to me that we would take these infrastructure projects and put them in an infrastructure bill and try to have a COVID bill related to fighting COVID. But, clearly, they are taking an opportunity, my friends on the other side, of loading this bill up with a liberal wish list--parochial interests--because they can. I hope the American people will understand what is going on and bring back a balance of power in Washington in 2022 because if you let them have it all, this is a sign of things to come. But we will talk about that later. There is $20 million in the bill for the preservation and maintenance of Native American languages. That might be something that makes sense, but we are dealing with a COVID package. There is $20 million for the preservation of maintenance of Native American languages and $135 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. I am an appropriator. This isn't an appropriations bill. It is not a COVID bill. In the committees I am on, we actually vet this stuff to see if it makes sense to put it in the normal appropriations cycle. They take a COVID problem--and it is a real problem still to this day-- and they load it up with things unrelated to COVID because they can. We can't stop them now. Maybe one day we can stop them and go back to the old way of doing business where we sit down and work together as Democrats and Republicans to spend over $4 trillion to combat COVID. My hope is that we will have some balance in the future that we don't have today. So $135 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities--what has that got to do with COVID? There are people really suffering out there. And $135 million for the Endowment for the Arts and $135 million for the Endowment for Humanities, that is still a lot of money where I come from There is $200 million for the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences. I am sure there are needs out there for museums and library sciences, but it should go through the appropriations process where we will have a chance to make a case for it or against it rather than it being crammed into a bill that is being printed while I speak. We are talking about a $1.9 trillion COVID package with 90 percent unrelated to COVID being printed while I speak. Now, if that is good government, count me out. Funding for Planned Parenthood. What has that got to do with COVID? PPP loans for labor unions. Paid leave for Federal employees. An $86 billion bailout for union pensions. Maybe that is something we want to look at, but in a COVID bill? This is why people are so turned off to Washington because we take a crisis, a problem facing your family and your community, and they turn it into a spendfest, a liberal wish list, indeed, come true. A new taxpayer-funded executive branch employee emergency leave program. Money for schools. We haven't spent the money we have allocated for schools yet. We are trying to open schools. The money that has been allocated for schools is still--most of it--a lot of it has been unspent. In this bill, we have $68 billion for K-12. The money should be given to people opening schools, and only $5 billion of that will be spent this year. Most of the money for K-12 assistance is in 2022 and the years that follow. That is not an emergency COVID package. That is just putting money into the education system in a fashion they like and we don't have any input over. It really has nothing to do with fighting the COVID crisis and getting our schools reopened. Of the $129 billion for K-12 in this package, $6.4 billion is to be distributed this year. The $68 billion was in the last round and only $5 billion this year, so most of the money for schools is spent in the out years. Again, that is just an opportunity to be taken by them. Of the $129 billion, $122 billion for K-12 schools will not be spent until years 2022 through 2028. God, I hope we don't have to deal with COVID in 2028. We have approved six COVID bills. We have spent over $4 trillion-- appropriated over $4 trillion. A trillion is yet unspent, and we are doing $1.9 trillion where 90 percent of it has nothing to do with COVID. Why are we doing this? Because they can. They have abandoned the bipartisan model that worked. They have chosen a partisan model. No matter what they tell you, my friends on the other side, this is a liberal wish list. This is very much seizing the moment, taking a crisis, a problem in America, and using it to advance causes completely unrelated to COVID, spending money that hasn't been vetted, spending money that has nothing to do with COVID because they can. The only thing I can tell you about spending money--count me in for helping people get back on their feet. I have always been for a direct payment. Count me out for a $1.9 trillion spendfest unrelated to COVID in a partisan fashion. This is everything President Biden said he wouldn't do. The inaugural speech rings hollow when it comes to this provision, the $1.9 trillion COVID package. Everything President Biden said he wanted to do for the country, he abandoned. It is not like there are plenty of Republicans that would sit down and work with our Democratic friends to do another round of COVID relief, but it has to be related to COVID, and we want to spend the money we have appropriated in the past first. Maybe that is an odd concept in Washington, but I will make a bet that most Americans find it odd that we would appropriate money for a problem when we haven't spent the money we had already appropriated in the past. We can get that out the door to see what needs to be done in the future. I think most Americans believe now is not the time to load a bill up with a bunch of stuff unrelated to COVID because we need every dollar to hit the mark. But we will have a chance to talk about that in the coming months, and there will be another election coming before you know it. The only thing I can leave with the American people here is that they have it all in terms of power. This is what they have chosen to do. They have chosen a partisan path, rejecting the bipartisan path. They have chosen to put most of the money in the bill for things unrelated to COVID simply because they can. The last election was about what would happen to our country if Democrats got in charge of everything. Many of us on our side said it would be one of the most liberal agendas in the history of American politics and would come forth pretty quickly. I had no idea it would come forth this quickly. I had no idea they would abandon a bipartisan approach to COVID because it seems to be the one area that we have had success regarding working together. During the campaign, I said that there would be two areas I thought we could do bipartisan legislation: One was COVID; the other was infrastructure. Boy, was I wrong about COVID. I am hoping that the American people pay some attention to this debate. We are going to have some really good amendments on our side that talk about how we would spend the money differently and why we would choose not to spend some money on this bill because it simply has nothing to do with COVID. The American people have suffered during the COVID pandemic, but there are better days ahead. I want us to do as much as we can for vaccinations and helping people get back into school. I am willing to help people who are struggling out there, but you shouldn't be giving a $1,400 check to people who make $200,000 as a couple. They changed that. They have taken the Silicon Valley railway out. They have also taken the bridge out because they had to, not because they wanted to. We are going to have a lot of amendments to show what we would do with your money versus what they would do with your money. We are going to have a lot of amendments that would show what we would do with COVID and how to fight COVID versus what they would do with COVID. That is what democracy is all about--working together when you can and showing differences when you must. There are going to be a lot of differences in this debate, and I think this will not be the last time you hear about this bill. I think this bill is going to resonate for months and years to come in all of the wrong ways. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I send a question to the desk on behalf myself, Senators Cruz, Marshall, and Cramer to counsel.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, so as I understand it, some of the Senators will come in after I speak. I will talk 10 or 15 minutes, and then we will get on with the process of voting. So, to the American people who may be watching, what is this all about? This is an effort by my Democratic colleagues, supported by President Biden, to pass $1.9 trillion in COVID relief through a budget process that requires only 50 votes. It goes around the idea of bipartisanship. And I would say this: I think all of us would like unity. I think President Biden said all the right things in his inauguration. The question is, Are we going to do more than talk about unity? I can understand having reconciliation used for ObamaCare or for taxes. You all did that. We did that. There are big philosophical differences. But this is the one area that there was bipartisanship up until recently. This is the one area where the Congress has been able to work together across party lines, and that is providing relief to the American people who have been long-suffering under the COVID pandemic. So I find it odd that if our goal is unity, we start with an issue that has been unified up until now. That is what is a bit perplexing because it is not like the Republican Party can't work with the Democratic Party to help the American people when it comes to COVID relief. We had a Republican President, a Democratic-controlled House, and a Republican Senate for the last year. We have appropriated $4 trillion in COVID relief for the American people working together. So when there was divided government--a Republican President, a Democratic-controlled House, and a Republican-controlled Senate--we were able to achieve bipartisanship in large measure, dealing with a lot of money, because we saw the problem as something worthy of bipartisanship, necessary for bipartisanship, and COVID was affecting everybody, regardless of political persuasion. Now we find ourselves early on in the Biden administration abandoning that model and going forward on a partisan effort to spend $1.9 trillion with one party alone without, really, input from the other party. On March 5, 2020, we approved an $8 billion supplemental appropriation 96 to 1. In March, we were just beginning to understand the nature of the COVID problem. We shut the country down pretty much in March, and as things became more clear to us, we acted, I think, responsibly. March 18, just a couple of weeks later, we approved, 98 to 8, a $355 billion package to help families that were affected by COVID. March 25, just about a week later, we spent $1.9 trillion in a COVID-relief package, which is a massive amount of money--one of the largest expenditures in the history of the country since World War II--96 to nothing. So we are now talking about spending $1.9 trillion in February of 2021, and there seems to be no ability here to negotiate a package that could get another 90-plus votes because my Democratic colleagues have chosen the reconciliation route. April 21, 2020, by voice vote, we spent $355 billion to add more money to the Paycheck Protection Act that Senator Collins and the Presiding Officer worked on to help businesses that had lost their customer base. September 30, we had $8 billion, 84 to 10. December 21, 2020, we did an omnibus bill of $1.4 trillion funding the government, and we had money for COVID in that package, about $900 billion. That passed 92 to 6. That was Christmas. Here is what I want you to understand. We have, up to now, been able to work together to help the American people who have been suffering from COVID. We have appropriated, as I have just described, over $4 trillion, and as of this moment, $2.7 trillion has actually been allocated. So there is over $1.3 trillion that we haven't spent yet. Of the $900 billion we authorized to be spent, appropriated in December, only 20 percent of it has been spent. So a lot of the money is yet to be spent, and now we are going to add $1.9 trillion on top of what we have done before all the money has been spent or most of it has been spent. We created a Federal Reserve program for midsize and larger businesses that had a $5.7 trillion cap on it, and we have done $2.6 trillion. So I think people on our side really believe that we should learn more about how the money we have already appropriated is being spent and that a $15 minimum wage increase in a COVID package is a bad idea during a COVID economy, and that is what is in this package. Most small businesses in South Carolina and throughout the country have been struggling to stay open due to lack of travel. And due to mandates at the State and local levels reducing the ability to have 100 percent occupancy in restaurants, tourism has really been hurt. The service sector has really been hurt. The food industry has really been hurt Can you imagine the combined effect of having the government reduce your ability to earn money by restricting your business model and at the same time adding a mandate to your business of maybe increasing your wages by 50 percent, maybe 100 percent? So this one-two punch will take out what is left of small businesses in the tourism sector and the restaurant business because what we have had to do--some people say we have done too much in restricting the ability of small businesses to earn a living, and that is having an effect on their ability to generate income. Now we are combining an increase in cost of increasing wages for every business in the country to $15 an hour over time. They can't absorb that. A lot of us believe that is the wrong thing to do in a COVID economy. Maybe one day we can talk about a minimum wage increase when business can get back on its feet, but that is one of the reasons that you are going to find pretty much unified opposition on our side. So I just want the American people to know, it is one thing to talk about unity, and it is another thing to seek it. And you picked the one issue that we have been able to find common ground. Why you did this, I don't know, but you have. I appreciate President Biden sitting down with 10 Republicans who wanted to find an alternative. A lot of people believe that in this package the direct payments go to people who really are not going to spend the money because they haven't lost their jobs and are making over $150,000 or $200,000-plus as a couple and that we should target direct stimulus checks to people in the lower income areas who have suffered the most. So there is a lot of concern about the nature of the $1.9 trillion package. Details do matter. But I will just say this: I can understand having a fight about healthcare and about taxes, but when it comes to COVID relief, we have been able, in the last year, to find bipartisanship for $4 trillion. And now we are abandoning that quest, and we are going to try to create a process--my Democratic colleagues are--to deal us all out on our side and pass a $1.9 trillion COVID package that I think in many ways misses the mark. So to say that I am disappointed is an understatement. You have the right to do this. And during the campaign, we talked about what would happen if one party got in charge of everything. We predicted, on the Republican side, if you have a Democratic President, Democratic Senate, and a Democratic House, the liberal wish list is going to come roaring through the House and the Senate, trying to get on President Biden's desk. To President Biden's credit, I think he ran a campaign that was more centrist, but now he has the chance, as President of the United States, to stand down this process and continue to talk with the Republicans. I think there are more than 10 who would like to find an alternative to a $1.9 trillion package that we think misses the mark and is being appropriated when we haven't spent most of the money we have already appropriated. So this is the choice you make. This is the debate we are going to have. It is going to be a long day. It will go into the night. Let's try to keep good cheer about it. I understand that we all love the country, but these kinds of debates are important, and the choices you make as a party--we will have to accept responsibility for the choices that we all make. And I would just urge my Democratic colleagues, this is one area where I have been relatively proud of the Congress. We have spent an enormous amount of money in a bipartisan fashion. Some of the most conservative Members of the Senate have been voting on pretty large amounts of money because, I think, generally speaking, it has been necessary. But now the vaccine is being distributed. Anything we can do to get it out faster to more people, great. Most of the money we have appropriated hasn't been spent. I would just ask that we slow down a bit. Whatever we spend in the future needs to be more targeted. And the last thing you want to do in a COVID economy is increase the cost of doing business at a time when most businesses are barely hanging on in certain sectors of the economy. So I look forward to working with Senator Sanders, trying to work through the amendments. This will be a long day, but, hopefully, it will be a fruitful day for the American people as you understand more about the differences that we have. And, eventually, maybe we can find something in common. If you asked me before the election: What are the two areas that bipartisanship would be easiest achieved, most likely to be achieved-- infrastructure, because we all have roads and bridges and ports, and COVID. So I was wrong about the COVID part, and time will tell if it matters at all. With that, I will yield to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the committee, Senator Sanders.

Mr. GRAHAM. Do it by voice vote?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, No. 687.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of this amendment, Senate amendment No. 687, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy was put in place by the Trump administration after talks with Mexico about how to stem the flow of migrants from Central America who were seeking to come to the United States for economic reasons more times than not. Before the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy was adopted, migrants from the Northern Triangle countries traveled to the United States, seeking to turn themselves in and claim asylum whether they had valid claims or not. They would then be released into the United States and often did not return for their court dates. If we end the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy for asylum seekers, it will lead to a run on our border and complicate efforts to reform the immigration system. Over 50,000 asylum seekers have been waiting in Mexico rather than in the United States, where they often disappear while waiting in the 1 million-person asylum case backlog. This was an important change that the Trump administration put in place, and it is a serious mistake to reverse it.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I know it is late, but this is important. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan 56 times. If you think this makes us safe, cutting all assistance to all allies everywhere--people are fighting and dying on behalf of this country. The least we can do, if you are in the fight, make sure you can come home and not have to go back. The best way to continue endless wars is to ignore the fact that when we leave, bad things happen. Vote on Amendment No. 441

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be responding to my good friend Senator Sanders. Apparently, I will be the ranking member on Budget; he will be the chairman. And I look forward to finding some common ground where we can. Today is not that day, but hope springs eternal. There are things I think we can do on the Budget Committee that will be good for the country. Here is the other side of the story. About a year ago--a little over a year ago--the pandemic coming out of China was detected, COVID, on the west coast of the United States. It has just done a number on us as a nation. Over 440,000 people have died from COVID-related infections. We finally got vaccines. They are in the pipeline. We need to get them out quicker, but I do believe that the vaccines are going to help us a lot. To the American people who have been suffering, I think better days lie ahead, but we are not there yet. But here is what is different. February 2, 2021, things changed. Up until now, we have been able, as a Congress and with the White House, to pass things together regarding COVID. We passed over $4 trillion of COVID relief in a bipartisan fashion up until today. Now, how was that done? You had a Republican President--President Trump--working with a Democratic-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate beginning of January--I guess, March of last year. Here is what we were able to do together. Phase 1, we approved 96 to 1 the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020. It was $8 billion. That was early on last year when we really didn't know what we were dealing with. Then, we did $355 billion, 90 to 8. Then, the next was $1.9 trillion. Listen to this: We spent $1.9 trillion, 96 to nothing. So it is not like we don't see a need to spend money. Ninety-six to nothing, this body agreed to spend $1.9 trillion last year. After that, we did the paycheck protection enhancement of $355 billion by voice vote. It is not like people on this side don't see a need. We had a continuing resolution where we added another $8 billion, 84 to 10. In the omnibus, we did another $1.04 trillion, 92 to 6. So when you add all this up, we have appropriated $4 trillion to deal with the problems associated with COVID--money for people who have been struggling, money for hospitals and doctors, money for vaccine development and distribution, direct payments, the PPP program to keep small businesses from going under that can't operate at full capacity. It has been a great program. It was bipartisan until now. Here is what I want the American people to know: We have done a lot together, and of the $4 trillion we have appropriated, to date, we have spent $2.7 trillion. Of the Federal Reserve actions we took allowing the Federal Reserve to help business, we had a $5.7 trillion market cap, for lack of a better term, and we have allocated $2.6 trillion. The bottom line is, of the $900 billion that we passed recently--a little over $900 billion--we have only spent 20 percent of the money. And here we are being asked for another $1.9 trillion. What is different between the first $1.9 trillion and this request? When it was first offered, the $1.9 trillion, it was the largest single appropriation, I think, maybe in the history of the country since World War II. And the fact that 96 Senators would come together and pass it 96 to nothing tells you about the way we saw the problem. And we have been adding and adding and adding. Now we are to a point where the Biden administration is proposing $1.9 trillion of additional spending. We haven't spent the money we have allocated--nowhere near the money we have allocated. And you have a bipartisan group of Republicans--10--who went to the White House yesterday and said: What about a little over $600 billion? See if that is enough I am afraid the answer is going to be no. So what has happened here? Democratic colleagues have won the White House. And Biden is President; he won. It is a 50-50 Senate. The Vice President makes it a Democratic-controlled body, to the extent that the Vice President breaks ties. And you have a smaller majority in the House than we have had in the last 20 years. But the consequence of what I have just described is that my Democratic colleagues are now in charge of everything. When it was divided government--when you had a Republican President, a Republican Senate, and a Democratic House--we were able to come together with overwhelming votes to help the American people. Now we find ourselves at a crossroads. Our Democratic colleagues are using a process called budget reconciliation that begins today that would allow them to pass the $1.9 trillion basically on a party-line vote--a simple majority, not reaching the 60-vote milestone. The 60-vote problem was never a problem up until now because Republicans and Democrats were able to work together up until now. What changed? They have got it all. Everything we told you would happen in the election is coming true. You have one party in control of Washington, and they are seizing the moment. What a $15-an-hour minimum wage has to do with fighting COVID, I don't know. But I do know this, now is the worst possible time to increase the cost on small businesses in South Carolina in the restaurant-hospitality industry. You are about to hit them with two government mandates that are going to put them out of business. They are all struggling. A lot of States have reduced capability in terms of indoor dining. DC, I think last week, for the first time, you could dine indoors at 25- percent capacity. States all over the country have different rules about how small business operates. The tourist industry is just about squashed. So people in the hospitality industry, in the restaurant business, and in the service industry, if this bill passes the way it has been proposed, are going to have a $15-per-hour per-employee mandate. That is going to sink them. They are going to have to lay a lot of people off because they are barely making it as it is. Here is what we are doing to those businesses. State and local governments are mandating a reduction in revenue. Why? Because you reduce the capability to earn money by reducing seating capacity and the other things associated with fighting COVID. So what does the Congress do? Do we relieve that burden by having more PPP? No. We increase your cost of doing business. This $15-an-hour minimum wage increase will dramatically increase the cost of doing business to small businesses at a time they can afford it the least. There are people out there working today that will be out of work tomorrow if this bill passes. My Democratic colleagues have taken the energy sector head-on. They stopped the Keystone Pipeline. I don't know how many thousands of jobs would be affected by that. But all of these mandates and all of these changes in policies are making it really hard right now to employ people. So count me in for more COVID relief once I understand how the money we have previously allocated has been spent. I think continuing to spend at this level, without understanding what the money in the past has done, is not very responsible. We have only spent 20 percent of the $900 billion we passed just a few weeks ago. Now we are going to do $1.9 trillion more? Of the $4 trillion we did together, $2.7 trillion has been spent. Over $1 trillion is sitting there not spent yet. So I guess the point I am trying to make, and my Republican colleagues, is that this $1.9 trillion package, there has been no effort to make it bipartisan. We are spending a lot more money before we understand how the money we spent actually works. And some of the policy provisions in this package, I think, are going to do more damage to the economy that is struggling to get back on its feet than good. But they have the power, and they are using it. He is right, Senator Sanders. When we had this authority, we cut your taxes through budget reconciliation. That is what we did, so it is not like Republicans haven't used this process. Democrats used it pretty much to pass ObamaCare. But this is one area where there has been pretty much a common view of things. Taxes are different between Republicans and Democrats. Who decides what healthcare you get--there are some people like my good friend from Vermont who wants single-payer healthcare. That is one way of doing it. I just disagree. Everything is about trying to help people. I don't doubt the motives; I just doubt where we are headed is a good outcome for the American people. So the bottom line is, up until now, we have had bipartisanship when it comes to COVID relief. The reason that bipartisanship has stopped is because we have one party in control of the U.S. Senate, the House, and the White House. Here is what I think: That is going to end not well because it is not like we don't want to help people; we just have a different view of how to help. And we would like to let some of the money we have already appropriated go to work and see how well it works and fill in gaps where you need to fill in gaps. Count me in for more payments, direct payments, beyond $600. Count me out for giving $2,000 payments to people who make almost $200,000 a year. I think it needs to be more targeted. I don't mind having more direct payments; I would like to make it more targeted. And I don't mind discussing raising the minimum wage when the COVID problem passes and we get back on our feet; I do mind doubling it in the middle of a pandemic. And I do believe that this $1.9 trillion package is going to do more harm than good to the American economy. The reason we are having this debate the way we are having this debate is because they have unlimited power, my Democratic colleagues. You have chosen to do this. The 10 Republicans who went down to the White House--I appreciate their effort. Maybe some good will come from that. But this process we are engaged in today makes me wonder if it was worth their time. Maybe we can pull a rabbit out of the hat and find a bipartisan compromise consistent with what we have done over the last year. If not, we are going to march down the reconciliation road. We are going to take $1.9 trillion of spending and let one party spend it. We are going to have one point of view about this money. We are going to let people spend $1.9 trillion without any input from the other side of the aisle, in a 50-50 divided Senate. I don't know what you got from the last election. Here is what I got: We did better in the House than I thought we would do; President Trump lost, but it was still a close election from an electoral college point of view; and the Senate is 50-50. I don't think the message from the last election was ``We want Democrats to spend $1.9 trillion and deal Republicans out.'' That is exactly what you are doing. It would be different if we had had a history over here of trying not to help. We were able, 96 to 0, to spend $1.9 trillion less than a year ago. And now we want to spend $1.9 trillion again--after the money previously allocated hasn't been spent? All I am suggesting to my Democratic colleagues is, we are going to have a different view on taxes, and we are going to have a different view on healthcare, but this is the one area where I really do believe there is a bipartisan middle ground to be had. To Senator Sanders, there may come a time where I will work with you to raise the minimum wage. The PPP program has been highly successful. The $600 billion proposal by Republicans has more money for that. It has more direct payments, but it is more targeted. Senator Manchin said that he wants more direct payments, but he wants it targeted to people on the lower economic end. Mike Rounds--one of our colleagues from South Dakota--got a check. The bottom line is, I don't mind helping people, but there has to be some sense that we can't just constantly write checks and hope one day that doesn't come back to bite us. One thing about a $15-an-hour minimum wage now--I think what it does is put pressure on businesses that can't stand any more pressure. It is going to cost people jobs that have a job. It is going to do more harm than good in this environment. When you combine the mandate of increasing wages where the $15 an hour is the least wage and add what we are doing in terms of restricting income generation, that is a formula for disaster for small businesses. This is it. If this bill passes the way it is written, there are going to be thousands of people out of work who were previously working in a small business that is going to fold. How does that help COVID? If you don't believe that, you are not really walking and talking to the people out there on the frontlines of this economy. The tourism industry in Myrtle Beach, SC, has been decimated. You can't fly from one State to the other without a 2-week quarantine. Hopefully, that will begin to pass when we get vaccine distribution at a higher level. But people along the coast of South Carolina in the hospitality tourism business are hanging by a thread. The PPP program has been a lifeline. The last $900 billion package had a new round of PPP money. If we need more money, count me in. Again, I would like to have a higher direct payment but not to people who make $150,000, $200,000 in combined income. This package is going to be devastating to the hospitality service industry. It is going to take us down a path we haven't gone before, which is a partisan approach to COVID. And I do believe--and maybe I am wrong--that with some effort on our part, we can reconcile the difference between what our Republican colleagues proposed and what President Biden has proposed and find some middle ground like we have in the past, but there doesn't seem to be a real effort to do that. All I can say is that the American people want us to work together for their benefit, and this will be the first time that I can recall where we have spent $1.9 trillion based on one party's view of things. That is not good. That is a lot of money--and it is so unnecessary. I would encourage Senator Sanders and my colleagues on the other side to give a chance to this negotiation and see if we can get there. I hope we can, but this is not the right way. What we are doing today is going to set into motion partisanship where there was previous bipartisanship. President Biden said he wanted to unify the Nation. You have picked the one topic that we have been pretty unified on, and you are going to disrupt that unification. The first COVID package had a $600 Federal supplement to State unemployment benefits, and I looked at that. My family was in the restaurant business. Senator Sanders gave statistics about support of the public. You are literally paying people more not to work than work. I want to help people because they are out of work--no fault of their own because of COVID--but when we went to $600, we were paying people $23 an hour, I think, in South Carolina not to work. That did not go over well with the public at large. We are trying to reduce that Federal supplement down to $300, not $600, to help people who are out of work but not to incentivize people not to go back to work when the economy is beginning to open. In this package, we go back to $400, and it goes all the way to September, which means it is going to be harder to hire people back when the economy does show signs of reopening. And it is beginning to show signs of coming back. The faster the vaccine is distributed, the more people who get inoculated, the sooner we can go back to business. I would just say to my Democratic colleagues: You have chosen this path. All of us are going to vote no to $1.9 trillion in spending--not because we don't care; it is because we would like to see what the money we spent in the past is doing before we add another $1.9 trillion. A lot of the provisions in your proposal, we think, have very little, if anything, to do with COVID, and it would be unfortunate if we go down this road. But we are not in charge. Now, 2022 will be here before you know it. Hopefully, by 2022, we will have th American people build up immunity to COVID, and our economy will come back the way it was before the COVID pandemic. Before the pandemic, the economy was doing well for all sectors of the American people. I think one of the things that helped was that tax cut that Senator Sanders opposed. But we can have political debates about that. The point I am trying to make is, up until this moment in time, we have been able to achieve overwhelming bipartisan support dealing with the COVID problem that we all face. It really is disappointing and disheartening that we are going to abandon that model when I don't think we have to. But that will be up to my Democratic colleagues. That will be up to President Biden. Biden Administration And finally, a message to President Biden: You won; we lost. You are the legitimate President of the United States. I want to help you where I can. I just got a briefing about what you are proposing in Afghanistan. I think it is darned good. There are plenty of things we can do around here together--on foreign policy and domestic policy. It doesn't have to be a fight to the death all the time. The infrastructure bill is there for the taking. I think most Americans realize our roads and our bridges and our ports need upgrading, and count me in for that. There are things that we can do. President Biden, you can do something too. You can say: Slow down in the Senate. Slow down in the House. I am going to see if I can find middle ground. I am telling you right now that $1.9 trillion being spent the way this bill envisions is not responsible. We haven't spent the money we have previously allocated. There is a lot in this bill that will cost jobs at a time we need jobs, and you are not going to help the COVID crisis by putting somebody out of work because of a government mandate that business can't afford to fulfill because they are hanging by a thread. We will have some time in the next couple of days to talk about what is in the package, what is not, our view of how this thing should all unfold. I will yield back here with a sense of optimism. To my Republican colleagues who went to talk to the White House, count me in. If you can work something out, I would like to be able to help. It is not like there is not some more money that can be spent, but this approach--the way you are spending the money, the amount of money in this approach, I think, is going to make this place less unified. If you are looking for unity, this is a lousy way to get it. With that, I yield.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Many times, my State has been the problem. I love it. That is where I want to die but no time soon. Tim and I have a good relationship. I love Tim Scott. In 1876, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida sent two slates of electors--they had two Governors, by the way--and we didn't know what to do. Why did South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana do it? To hold the country hostage to end Reconstruction. It worked. The Commission was 8 to 7. It did work. Nobody accepted it. The way it ended is when Hayes did a deal with these three States: You give me the electors. I will kick the Union Army out. The rest is history. It led to Jim Crow. If you are looking for historical guidance, this is not the one to pick. If you are looking for a way to convince people there was no fraud, having a commission chosen by Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, and John Roberts is not going to get you to where you want to go. It ain't gonna work. So it is not going to do any good. It is going to delay, and it gives credibility to a dark chapter of our history. That is why I am not with you, but I will fight to my death for you. You are able to object. You are not doing anything wrong. Other people have objected. I just think it is a uniquely bad idea to delay this election. Trump and I have had a hell of a journey. I hate it being this way. Oh, my God, I hate it. From my point of view, he has been a consequential President. But today, the first thing you will see, all I can say is, count me out. Enough is enough. I tried to be helpful. But when the Wisconsin supreme court ruled 4 to 3 that they didn't violate the Constitution of Wisconsin, I agreed with the three, but I accept the four. If Al Gore can accept 5 to 4 he is not President, I can accept Wisconsin 4 to 3. Pennsylvania went to the Second Circuit. So much for all the judges being in Trump's pocket. They said: No, you are wrong. I accept the Pennsylvania Second Circuit that Trump's lawsuit wasn't right. Georgia, they said the secretary of state took the law in his own hands, and he changed the election laws unlawfully. A Federal judge said no. I accept the Federal judge, even though I don't agree with it. Fraud. They say there is 66,000 people in Georgia under 18 voting. How many people believe that? I asked: Give me 10. I haven't had one. They said 8,000 felons in prison in Arizona voted. Give me 10. I haven't gotten one. Does that say there are problems in every election? I don't buy this. Enough is enough. We got to end it. Vice President Pence, what they are asking you to do, you won't do because you can't. Talk about interesting times. I associate myself with Rand Paul. How many times will you hear that? The mob has done something nobody else could do to get me and Rand to agree. Rand is right. If you are a conservative, this is the most offensive concept in the world that a single person could disenfranchise 155 million people. [T]he President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, open all certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest number of votes for President shall be President. Where in there does it say that Mike can say, ``I don't like the results; I want to send them back to the States; I believe there was fraud''? To the conservatives who believe in the Constitution, now is your chance to stand up and be counted. Originalism, count me in. It means what it says. So Mike--Mr. Vice President, just hang in there. They said: We can count on Mike. All of us can count on the Vice President. You are going to do the right thing. You are going to do the constitutional thing. You have a son who flies F-35s. You have got a son-in-law flying F-18s. They are out there flying so we can get it right here. There are people dying, to my good friend from Illinois, to make sure we have a chance to argue among ourselves, and when it is over, it is over. It is over. The final thing. Joe Biden. I have traveled the world with Joe. I hoped he lost. I prayed he would lose. He won. He is the legitimate President of the United States. I cannot convince people, certain groups, by my words, but I will tell you by my actions that maybe I, above all others in this body, need to say this. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are lawfully elected and will become the President and the Vice President of the United States on January the 20th. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, it is my honor to speak on the floor about this nomination, which I think is historic in many facets and all positive from my point of view. We have before the committee the nomination of Judge Barrett, who currently sits on the Seventh Judicial Circuit. She is one of the most impressive people I have ever met. Two days of hearings; answering every question thrown to her with grace and judicial demeanor. I think it should be the gold standard for every other nominee. I want to thank my staff, beginning with Lee Holmes, the director. Lee has done such a great job on the Judiciary Committee and has done a lot of things--some contentious and some not. I want to thank Lee for shepherding this nomination and the fine work he has done. Mike Fragoso--Mike, I got your first name right anyway. He is just outstanding. He has done a terrific job. The permanent nominations unit for the Judiciary Committee includes Lauren Mehler, Raija Churchill, Tim Rodriguez, Watson Horner, and Akhil R-A-J-A-S-E-K-A-R--I don't want to butcher your name. They all worked incredibly hard for 135 article III judges, not just this one. In addition, Lucas Croslow joined my staff to lead the team of special counsels assisting with the Barrett nomination. That included Sidd Dadhich, D-A-D-H-I-C-H, Joe Falvey, Abby Hollenstein, Eric Palmer, and Robert Smith. They went through the entire record presented by Judge Barrett to make sure we would be prepared for the confirmation process. The law clerks were Matt Simpson, Emily Hall, Megan Cairn, and Peter Singhal. I would like to thank the Judiciary Committee's press secretary, Taylor Reidy. They did a great job, along with George Hartmann, as well as our deputy staff director, Joe Keeley. The bottom line is, all of them worked really hard. They made history. They should be proud and tell their grandkids about all this. Well done. To my Democratic colleagues, I know you didn't like what we did, but I do appreciate the way you conducted yourselves in the hearing. It wasn't a circus. I think you challenged the judge appropriately during your time. We had 4 days of hearings. We heard from a variety of people about Judge Barrett. In terms of the process, it was well within what we have done in the past. In every Judiciary Committee markup regarding a Supreme Court Justice, we have done the same thing. The first day is opening statements, then 2 days of questions, and the final day is input from outside groups. That is what we were able to do here. So she went through the process like every other nominee since I have been here. But let me just say this to my Democratic colleagues. It is not about the process. You will find ways to make sure that most of you can't vote for anybody we nominate. It really does break my heart. With Roberts, 78 to 22, that was sort of the norm. I think Alito got 96 and Ginsburg got 97. Maybe I got the numbers right. I can't remember who got what, but one got 96 and one got 97. It used to not be this way. It used to be different. We looked at the qualifications and said: OK, you are good to go. You are a person of integrity. You are smart. You are well rounded. You are knowledgeable in the law. You may have a different philosophy than I have, but we understand elections matter. And everybody accepted the election outcome. Those days are over, absolutely completely over and destroyed. There is nobody any Republican President can ever nominate, I think, who is not going to face a hard time. That is too bad. That is the way it is. Alito, 58 to 42--Judge Alito was well known on our side of the aisle. He was the kind of person you would be looking at to promote to the Supreme Court. President Bush nominated him. Well within the mainstream. Roberts and Alito were well known in the conservative world, being ver bright court of appeals judges whom any Republican President would be looking at to put on the Court if they ever had an opportunity. There is no difference between Alito and Roberts, but Alito went through hell. But he made it, and he got 58 votes. So then along comes President Obama. He gets two picks--Sotomayor, 68 votes to 31. I think she deserved more, but 68 is pretty darn good. I was glad to vote for her. I saw that she was qualified. Then we had Elena Kagan, 63 votes. You can see the trend here. Both of them were Obama nominees, 68 and 63, and I thought Elena Kagan was highly qualified. She had a different judicial philosophy. She was a dean of the law school at Harvard but worked for the Solicitor General's Office. Both of them had been with the liberal side of the Court most every case but not all. I am not surprised the way they decided cases. I think they are tremendously well-qualified women and should be sitting on the Court. That is exactly who you would expect a Democratic President to pick--Sotomayor and Kagan. So now we come back. Trump wins. Nobody thought he would win, including me. I voted for somebody in 2016 I wouldn't know if he walked through the door--Evan McMullin. I think I met him once. I had my challenge for President Trump during the 2016 primary. He beat me like a drum. I accepted my defeat. I have been trying to help him ever since, and I think he has done a really good job of sending to the Senate highly qualified judges. He has gotten input from a lot of different people--the Federalist Society, you name it--a lot of different people. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh had one thing in common: They were in my top three recommendations. Any Republican President looking to nominate somebody to the Supreme Court would be looking at Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. These are not exotic picks. They are in the mold of Sotomayor and Kagan in terms of qualifications. So what happened? Gorsuch was the first attempt at a partisan filibuster. We had three votes to get 60, and we couldn't, so we changed the rules for the Supreme Court like they changed the rules in 2013 for the district court and court of appeals. If we had not, Gorsuch wouldn't be on the Court. And to say he is not qualified is a joke. It is an insult to him and says more about you than it does Judge Gorsuch. If you can't see he is qualified, you are blinded by your hatred of Trump. So he made it, but we had to change the rules. We hated to do it but had to do it because in any other time, Gorsuch would have gotten the same type votes as Roberts because he is just highly qualified. Then comes along Kavanaugh. Nothing about process there. There was no process argument. Right at the very end, the last day of the hearing when we thought it was all over, you give us a letter that you had for weeks, an allegation against the judge. It would have been nice to share it with him so he could tell his side of the story, but you chose not to do that. You had it precooked with the press outlets, and everything blew up. So all of us on the committee had to decide what to do. I sat down with Senator Flake and Senator Collins, and we felt like the allegations had to be heard. They are made. I know a lot of people on our side thought it was unfair, dirty pool, but we had the opportunity to have the hearing, and the rest is history. It was high drama. All I can say is that something happened to the person who accused Judge Kavanaugh, but I don't believe Judge Kavanaugh had anything to do with it. This was a party in high school. Ms. Ford couldn't remember where it was and who was there. The people who were said to have been there said they don't remember anything like it happened. Judge Kavanaugh hasn't lived a life like what was being described. He was accused by four or five people. Three of them actually made it up. I hope some of them go to jail for lying to the committee and the country. They were trying to make him a rapist and drugging women in high school, and what was his annual all about? It was the most sickening episode in my time in the Senate. They were hell-bent on destroying this guy's life based on a bunch of manufactured lies and evidence that wouldn't get you out of the batter's box in any court of law in the land. And here we are, 50 to 48. What I saw there was a turning point for me. We cannot continue to do this. You are going to drive good people away. And I am hoping that the Barrett hearings, which were far more civil and far more traditional, will be a turning point because I don't know who the next President will be, but there will be an opening, I am sure, on the Court. I am hoping that the next hearing is more like Barrett's and less like Kavanaugh's, no matter who wins. Now, Barrett. I understand the concern about the process. This is the latest we have ever confirmed somebody. You heard all the arguments about when the President is of one party and the Senate of a different party; you have had one confirmation in 100-some years; that most of the time, when the President is of the same party as the Senate, they go through. I understand. The bottom line is, we gave her the same type hearing that Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh had. My Democratic colleagues showed up at the hearing, they participated, they pushed her hard, but I don't think they went across the line. They decided not to show up for markup. I hate that, but that is the way it is. I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the person who is going onto the Court in about an hour. If you are looking for somebody a Republican would be picking, regardless of the process, it would be Judge Barrett. She would be on anybody's list. I listened to Senator Durbin, who is a good friend, and we will work on whatever comes our way after the election. I find that he is somebody you can work on hard things like immigration with. But his description of Judge Barrett simply doesn't pass scrutiny. He is trying to make a character of this person that doesn't exist. There is nothing exotic about Judge Barrett. She is very mainstream in our world. All I can say is that after 2 days of hearings, the American people, by 51 percent--it is pretty hard to figure that in this country, you get 51 percent agreement on anything--felt like she should be going onto the Court. Here is what Dean O'Hara said, the dean of Notre Dame Law School, who hired Amy Barrett to be a professor at Notre Dame: I have only communicated with this august committee on two occasions. The first was ten years ago when I wrote a strong letter in support of now-Justice Elena Kagan, whose term as dean of Harvard Law School overlapped with my own. The second is today introducing and endorsing Amy Coney Barrett in equally strong terms. Some might find these recommendations to be in juxtaposition, but I find them entirely consistent. To anybody wondering about Judge Barrett, I would highly recommend that you look at the ABA's recommendations and the process they used to find her ``well qualified.'' Not one person uttered a negative word about her character, according to the ABA. Someone said to the ABA: The myth is real. She is a staggering academic mind. She is incredibly honest and forthright. She is exactly who you think she is. Nothing about her is fake. She is good, she is decent, she is selfless, and she is sincere. She is an exemplar of living an integrated life. The Standing Committee would have been hard-pressed to come up with any conclusion other than that Judge Barrett has demonstrated professional competence that is exceptional. Then they had a committee to look at her writings--all of her writings. They accepted input from 944 people she has interacted with in her professional life. Not one negative comment. So forget about what politicians say about Judge Barrett. Forget about what people who don't recognize President Trump as being a legitimate President say about Judge Barrett. Forget about what I say if you want to. Look at what people who worked with her said, who are in the law business, who know her individually and have worked with her as a judge, as a professor, and they conclude without any doubt that she is one of the most gifted people to ever be nominated to the Supreme Court. There is nothing exotic about Judge Barrett. She is going onto the Court in about an hour. That is exactly where she needs to be. She is the type of person who has lived a life worthy of being nominated. She is the type of person who is worthy of receiving a large vote in the Senate, but she won't get it. She is not going to get one Democratic vote. Write her out of the process if you want to. That is fine. But what about the others? All I can say is that we are going to have an election here in about a week, and whatever happens, I am going to acknowledge the winner when it is all said and done. It may go to the Supreme Court. I don't know. But there will be a day that we know who won, and I am going to accept those results, and I am going to do with the next President what I have tried to do with this one and every other one--try to find a way forward on things that are hard to keep the country moving forward. To the majority leader and the minority leader, it is a tough place around here now. This, too, shall pass. But this is about Judge Barrett. This is about her time, her moment. She has done everything you would expect of her. She has exceeded every challenge put in her way. She has impressed everybody she has worked with. She has impressed the country. She is going onto the Court because that is where she deserves to be. As to us in the Senate, maybe down the road we can get back to the way we used to be. I don't know. But I do know this. There is nothing exotic about Judge Barrett. She is as mainstream as it gets from our side of the aisle. When it comes to people outside of politics looking at her, it was universal: ``highly qualified,'' ``highly competent,'' ``ready to serve this country as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.'' My last thought: It is hard to be a conservative person of color. That is a very difficult road to hoe in modern American politics. My good friend Tim Scott is a great voice for conservatism. And Tim--a lot of things were said about Tim that were said about nobody else on our side of the aisle. He is tough. He can handle it. The same for conservative women. Judge Barrett did not abandon her faith. She embraces it. But she said: I embrace my faith. But as a judge, it will not be the rule of Amy. It will be the rule of law. It will be the facts. It will be the law and the outcome dictated by the law, not by anything I personally believe. I will say this. For the young, conservative women out there who are pro-life and embrace your faith, there is a seat at the table for you. This is historic. This nomination is different. This is a breakthrough for conservative young women. I was honored to be the chair of the committee that reported out Judge Barrett to the floor of the Senate, and I am going to be honored to cast my vote to put her on the Supreme Court, exactly where she deserves to be. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to introduce the Restoring Critical Supply Chains and Intellectual Property Act. China looms large in this debate about the coronavirus. That is where the virus originated. The lying and deceptive behavior of the Chinese Communist Party has brought this pandemic to the world. It is the third pandemic to come out of China. I think it is now time for us to get serious about our dependency on China. What does this legislation do? It has four components. The protective equipment that our nurses and doctors and all healthcare workers use to protect themselves on the frontlines--90 percent of it is made in China. We are going to try to bring it back home. We have a ``Buy American'' requirement in this bill--a $7.5 billion tax credit to reenergize American production of PPE equipment. We are trying to get PPE under the Berry amendment of the Defense bill. We require our uniforms for our military to be made in America to the extent possible. We are going to try to create PPE in the same category as a national security item. There will be a $7.5 billion tax credit to jump-start this industry. A lot of good jobs will come from this, and we will be less dependent on China when it comes to protective equipment. I will discuss Senator Portman's legislation, Safeguarding American Innovation Act, which is included, Senator Cornyn's CHIPS for America Act, and Senator Murkowski's American Mineral Security Act very quickly. Senator Cornyn's CHIPS for America Act creates tax incentives to return and grow a domestic semiconductor industry. A Taiwanese firm made a big decision to come to America--I think in Texas--a Taiwanese semiconductors company. We are trying to incentivize their relocation into the United States and jump-start a semiconductor industry that has left the country. It is very important for the future of our economy. Senator Portman's Safeguarding American Innovation Act creates a Federal research council and institutes penalties for bad actors who come to the United States or are here to steal important intellectual property. I think we all know who we are talking about here. China leads the pack there, and you saw what happened in Houston. Senator Murkowski's American Mineral Security Act promotes secure and robust domestic supply chains of critical minerals by streamlining the permitting process for extraction and emphasizing R&D into critical mineral recycling and development. These four things together will protect our supply chain. It will bring it back to the country at a time when we need to have more say about our destiny. The pandemic has been a wake-up call all over the board. There is nothing more important to me than relocating the medical supply chain and protecting the innovation that we are known for as a country. With that, I yield.