Bill Hagerty

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, since last year, I have been asking for a commitment from my Democratic colleagues that any future reconciliation legislation in this Congress will not incorporate policies that will reduce access to care in nonexpansion States, such as Tennessee. Specifically, my concern is that the reconciliation legislation that the House of Representatives passed last fall, which is the very vehicle for the reconciliation bill currently being discussed in the Senate, included provisions that cut DSH and uncompensated care pool payments for nonexpansion States. This would result in less healthcare for vulnerable populations in my State, it would accelerate hospital closures, and it would disadvantage rural communities. These are places and populations for which we are trying to secure more quality healthcare, not less. Because I still have not received confirmation that these provisions will not be included in the final text of the partisan reconciliation bill, I cannot consent to expediting confirmation of this nominee and, therefore, I object.

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I would like to respond to my friend from Pennsylvania. That is a very reasonable request. We are getting ready to go through a process of which I have not yet seen the text--an amendment process that is hard to anticipate--and dread to think that there would be another wraparound, that that could happen as well. But assuming that we get to an end point and this language that I have discussed is not in the bill--the same language that the House included is not in this bill--I would be more than happy to lift my objection.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, since last year, I have been asking for a commitment from my Democrat colleagues that any future reconciliation legislation in this Congress will not incorporate policies that will reduce access to care in nonexpansion States such as Tennessee. Specifically, my concern is that this reconciliation legislation that the House of Representatives passed last fall included provisions that cut DSH and uncompensated care pool payments for nonexpansion States. This would result in less healthcare for vulnerable populations in my State, accelerate hospital closures in my State, and it would disadvantage rural communities in my State of Tennessee. These are places and populations for which we are trying to secure more quality healthcare, not less. Because I have not received confirmation that these provisions will not be included in any future reconciliation bill, I cannot consent to expediting confirmation of this nominee, and I object.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. As I mentioned a moment ago, I have been asking for a commitment from my Democratic colleagues that any future reconciliation legislation in this Congress will not incorporate policies that will reduce access to care in my home State of Tennessee. Reiterating, my concern is that the reconciliation legislation that the House passed last fall included provisions that cut DSH payments and uncompensated care pool payments for nonexpansion States which would result in less healthcare for vulnerable populations in my State, accelerate hospital closures, and disadvantage rural communities. These are places and populations for which we are trying to secure more quality healthcare, not less. Because I have still not received confirmation that these provisions will not be included in any future reconciliation bill, I cannot consent to expediting confirmation of this nominee, and I object.

Mr. HAGERTY

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

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Supreme Court Security Funding Act of 2022, which I introduced with Senator Warner just last week. Yesterday evening, the Senate approved by unanimous consent this bipartisan legislation, which provides emergency security resources to the Supreme Court of the United States and to the U.S. Marshals Service. The House of Representatives must approve this bill without amendment or delay and send it to the President's desk before adjourning this week. The need is urgent and obvious. There is no question the Supreme Court, its Justices, their families, and Court employees are under unprecedented and unexpected threat. This includes recent highly publicized threats against Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Sotomayor. These threats may well become more acute in the coming weeks as the Court concludes its term. There is no question that protecting the Court from these threats requires additional resources in Fiscal Year 2022 because unexpected resources are being deployed. This legislation provides those necessary resources. More specifically, the U.S. Marshals Service has been providing around-the-clock security for the nine Justices at their homes and needs 10.3 million in emergency funding to cover these costs for the remainder of this fiscal year. The Supreme Court needs 9.1 million to cover its increased security costs for this fiscal year. These include overtime pay for Supreme Court Police officers, mutual aid payment to assisting law enforcement agencies, and increased physical security around the Supreme Court Building. If Congress doesn't immediately provide this funding, the Court and Marshals Service may be forced to transfer funds from other critical functions and entities, like the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Courts of Appeal. That is an unacceptable outcome given the obvious and urgent need for this security funding and the gravity of the threat against one of our three constitutional branches. Congress recently passed--and the President signed into law-- legislation by Senators Cornyn and Coons to increase the scope of authorized Supreme Court Police protection to include the Justices' immediate family members. Congress rightly provided this additional security authorization to protect the Court. These expanded authorities are important, but there should be no question regarding whether Congress will separately provide the resources necessary to protect the Supreme Court during its hour of need. I thank my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, for working with me on this legislation. I also want to thank the senior Senator from Alabama, Vice Chairman Shelby, and his staff, as well as the senior Senator from Vermont, Chairman Leahy, for their help and their guidance. Finally, I thank my Senate colleagues for their cooperation in ensuring the swift passage of this legislation in the Senate. Now, I urge the House of Representatives to promptly send this bill to the President's desk before it adjourns later this week. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGERTY

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

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, with the President of the United States soon to be departing on his first Asia trip, I rise to speak today about U.S. policy in the Indo-Pacific, an area of the world that I know very well, having served as U.S. Ambassador to Japan prior to joining the U.S. Senate. While U.S. foreign policy in recent months has focused largely on Eastern Europe, we cannot take our attention away from our Nation's greatest strategic adversary, namely, the Chinese Communist Party. Confronting communist China is the essential responsibility of our time, as the China challenge--and how the United States and our allies respond to it--will determine whether freedom or autocracy defines the 21st century. That is why I am pleased to see President Joe Biden investing the time and energy to travel to South Korea and to Japan this weekend. I can tell you just how critical I believe this trip is because I made a trip similar to this just last month. In April, I led the first congressional delegation to visit Japan since the pandemic began. I was joined by my colleagues Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland and Senator John Cornyn of Texas. During our 6 days in Japan, our bipartisan delegation met with the country's top leaders, including the Prime Minister, his Cabinet members, Parliamentarians, and top leaders from Japanese industry. I think it is fair to say that our delegation returned with a great sense of optimism--optimism about the opportunities that lie before our two nations to increase our cooperation diplomatically, militarily, economically, and technologically and, by so doing, strengthening our alliance. While I certainly have policy disagreements with the current administration, I am hopeful that this is one area in which we can find common ground. The fates of our Nation and the world depend on it. This challenge, quite frankly, is just far too important to get wrong. So I am hopeful that President Biden will seize upon the opportunities presented to him in the Indo-Pacific region to confront the China challenge head-on and that this trip will provide him with a greater perspective to do so. I am pleased to see this administration maintain a focus on the Indo- Pacific region, a focus that President Trump began and that I personally was proud to help lead from my diplomatic post in Tokyo. I also applaud President Biden for the actions that he has taken to engage the Quad at the leader level. Much more can be done. In terms of strengthening our diplomatic cooperation, the United States should warmly welcome Japan's proactive leadership in response to recent international crises. Japan is the world's third largest economy and a major financial player on the world stage. Japan is a member of the G7. In the days after Russia's unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine, the Government of Japan joined by imposing strong, multilateral sanctions against Vladimir Putin's war machine. Japan's support on sanctions is as important as it is necessary. I saw this firsthand when, as U.S. Ambassador to Japan, I worked with then-Prime Minister Abe and his administration in complying fully with U.S. secondary sanctions to end Japan's purchases of Iranian oil in 2018. With Japan's help, we dramatically reduced Iran's revenue stream and its ability to fund terror at that time. We see Japan's importance today with regard to multilateral sanctions against Russia. Going forward, the United States must do its utmost to ensure that Japan always has a seat at the table on major international issues. Indeed, I was very pleased to see Foreign Minister Hayashi become the first Japanese Cabinet member to attend a NATO ministerial when he traveled to Brussels last April. And I am even more pleased to learn that Prime Minister Kishida is considering attending the NATO Summit in Spain next month. Here, I see an opportunity for the United States to engage further with Japan and NATO by exploring new ways to expand high-level diplomatic interactions and information sharing. When I made the suggestion to Secretary of State Antony Blinken during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in early May, I was glad to see that my suggestion was well received. The second opportunity that I see is in the area of improving defense and deterrence in the Indo-Pacific. The United States and Japan must further increase coordination on defense planning and procurement as Japan looks to significantly boost its spending on defense. Japan has already begun the process of rewriting its national security strategy and its related national defense strategy. At the same time, leaders in Tokyo see growing support from the Japanese people to roughly double Japan's defense spending to 2 percent of GDP. These developments come at a critical moment. Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party have their eyes set on Taiwan, and they are surely learning lessons from Russia's invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, North Korean Dictator Kim Jong Un continues to develop nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles as he poses grave and gathering threats to the United States and to our allies in the region. Our nations, therefore, must act with great urgency to strengthen defense and deterrence in the Indo-Pacific. In particular, the United States must encourage Japan to use their increased spending to field as rapidly as possible new defense capabilities that are mobile, lethal, and interoperable. Japan must also significantly improve its cyber security capabilities and its ability to share intelligence and information with its allies. And it is critical that the American and Japanese militaries expand joint training exercises with one another. I have had the honor of witnessing firsthand the success of our joint training exercises, and I encourage our nations to expand this invaluable training. The third area where I see an opportunity is on energy security, an area in which we should be working together. This was the message that I heard last month in Japan as leaders expressed concerns with America's current energy policies. Several years ago, I worked hard to encourage Japan to make significant investments in LNG infrastructure to allow greater LNG imports from the United States in order to strengthen our two nations' energy security and our national security. I hope President Biden's visit will underscore the significance of American strength as an energy exporter to enhance the security of our allies. But all members of the Quad must engage in the critical topic of energy security. India is the world's biggest democracy and now has an opportunity to decrease its energy and military reliance on Russia, and Australia is a significant energy exporter. When Secretary Blinken recently testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I pointed out to him that the Quad already has high-level working groups working on COVID-19 vaccines, infrastructure, critical and emerging technologies, space, cyber security, and environmental matters. But my argument to him was that adding a new working group in the Quad--one focused specifically on energy security--makes strong strategic sense, as energy security is inextricably linked to economic security and to our national security. Frankly, it is surprising to me that the Quad hasn't already made this issue a primary focus. Secretary Blinken appeared to appreciate the suggestion, and I emphatically urge the administration to take this idea to heart and dedicate time and energy to discussing energy security in our Quad strategic grouping. The fourth area of opportunity that I see is in technology. The United States and Japan already cooperate closely in this space. That was a point that I sought to underscore in many of our meetings with Japan's private sector leaders. I see growing opportunities for our Quad partners to ensure our respective technology sectors continue to work together and to generate trusted alternatives in 5G, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and in other strategic technologies. When I served as U.S. Ambassador to Japan, I helped the United States and Japanese Governments coordinate closely to counter Huawei and China's other heavily subsidized companies and to clear them from the 5G markets of our representative economies. This was important because Chinese companies like Huawei pose grave and growing national security and espionage risks. Our U.S.-Japan strategy prevented Huawei and other Chinese Communist Party-directed technology firms from obtaining the global scale that they sought in their effort to dominate international markets. It also created openings for firms in the United States, Japan, and partner countries to pursue trusted 5G alternatives in supply chains, including software-defined networks and ORAN technologies. With each passing year, the technology competition with China is only intensifying. It is, therefore, imperative that the U.S.-Japan alliance and the Quad increase coordination and innovation in response to technological competition. The fifth opportunity is in economic leadership in the Indo-Pacific. When President Biden visits the region, I expect him to speak more about the Indo-Pacific economic framework. It is clear that many of our allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific are eager to see more U.S. economic leadership. As a next step, the United States should take the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework's data provisions and turn them into a stand-alone, sector-specific free-trade agreement. The executive branch should look closely at the U.S.-Japan Digital Trade Agreement of 2019 as a good starting point. This is the most comprehensive and high-standards agreement addressing digital trade barriers. I was proud to help then-U.S. Trade Representative Bob Lighthizer negotiate this and other bilateral agreements with Japan. Our efforts brought about a more fair and reciprocal trading relationship between our two nations, helping not only our economies but also our workers. The Biden administration has rightly maintained the Trump administration's tariffs on China as important leverage to uphold fair and reciprocal trade. This is a critical tool in our arsenal, and I hope the current administration continues to use it. There certainly are other areas where the administration must hold the line against China. The administration could do more to hold communist China accountable for unleashing the COVID-19 pandemic upon the world. It also needs to press Beijing to stop the deadly flow of Chinese-origin fentanyl and fentanyl precursors from flowing across our southern border and killing more than 100,000 Americans a year through overdoses. And we also know what is at stake when it comes to China's growing military threats against Taiwan. The last administration set a high standard on countering China, and I hope the current administration builds on that success. I believe there is strong bipartisan consensus in Congress when it comes to the Indo-Pacific and when it comes to the rising opportunities that we see before us to further strengthen the U.S.-Japan alliance and the Quad. So I urge President Biden to seize these growing opportunities that I have outlined when he travels to the Indo-Pacific. As the only former American Ambassador serving in this body and as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I stand ready to work with him as he does. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the legacy and impact of Steve Berger, follower of Christ and beloved pastor, leader, mentor, and friend. Since Steve was called to serve the ministry more than 30 years ago, he has been a giant in the faith. His passion, his boldness, and his resolve in spreading love and the glory of God has been an inspiration to so many, and has truly been a force for good in our community. I commend the devotion to faith that marks Steve's life and has marked the lives of many others in turn. Through Steve's courageous preaching and wise leadership, Grace Chapel has transcended the walls of the local church and has seen such success across our great State. Steve has always been one to lead by example, constantly showing his relentless love for the hurting, oppressed, and impoverished across the globe. Steve's profound devotion has taken him to some of the farthest comers of the world to serve, help, and save those who are suffering. Steve has brokered peace in war-torn countries and has been a faithful, generous, and loving friend to Israel. He has brought God's healing to the wounded, His Word to the burdened, His sustenance to the poor, and His hope to the persecuted. And so it is with a glad and grateful heart that today I rise to affirm and honor the tremendous influence of Steve Berger.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, I am here today to discuss worrying developments in Mexico--one of the United States most important international partners and our neighbor to the south. The nearly 2,000-mile border that our nations share, both binds us together and presents a series of challenges, including illegal immigration, drug control, and human trafficking. But as we work through these difficult issues, our robust economic relationship has provided a firm foundation to strengthen and stabilize our efforts with an eye toward the future. The innovative U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement--or USMCA, as it is called--has deepened the connections between our two economies, such that Mexico is now one of our largest and most strategic trading partners. However, actions over the past year by the government of Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, better known as AMLO, have weakened that bond and are threatening the economic and diplomatic ties of our two nations. Through increasingly arbitrary and aggressive moves against companies based here in the United States and their lawfully owned assets in Mexico, the Mexican Government has abused its permitting and regulatory powers in ways that violate the letter and the spirit of our trade agreements and the special relationship that exists between our two countries. These decisions directly impact critical sectors of the U.S. economy, from agriculture to energy and mining, from transportation to tourism. These capricious actions, which are falsely labeled as ``reforms,'' risk substantially undermining confidence in the commercial rule of law in Mexico, and these actions also risk jeopardizing the essential economic relations in North America. Further, these actions likely violate our trade agreements by abrogating contracts, stripping investors of value, and eliminating private competition and oversight, thereby sending a clear message to U.S. capital markets that Mexico is no longer safe nor profitable for investing. Earlier this month, AMLO even threatened to jail political opponents and investors who stand in his way, desperately attempting to impose a state-centered, anti-free-market agenda. If not quickly corrected, these actions risk choking off the economic relationship between our two nations. Many important supply chains stretch across the U.S.-Mexico border, supporting millions of good jobs and making both countries more attractive for capital investment. This is certainly true for my home State of Tennessee. Because of that success, I have advocated for further expanding the integrated North American supply chain for critical industries as a better and more stable alternative to manufacturing and exporting from communist China. Utilizing the successes of the USMCA as the backbone for a renewed vision of North American competitiveness would benefit both American and Mexican prosperity, as well as both of our nations' national security. It would also better align the economic strategies and national interests of our two countries. But without a basic respect for private property and the rule of law, that mutually beneficial progress will not happen. In fact, failing to protect private property and the rule of law will inevitably lead to the disintegration of economic ties. Therefore, I urge President Lopez Obrador to reverse course before more damage is done. Instead, we should be looking for opportunities to work together to attract investment and unlock economic opportunity that is presented by the global rebalancing of supply chains away from communist China. Let's seize the opportunity together rather than damage our shared interests for short-term political gains. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, I am here today to discuss what I saw this past weekend when I took a trip to our southern border in Texas. I led a delegation of eight sheriffs and mayors from my home State of Tennessee. We went to see what is happening, what the effects of the border crisis are, and to hear from them and allow the border agents to hear from them the effects of the border crisis in our own communities in Tennessee. Our mayors and sheriffs are seeing record drug overdoses, gang violence, and other forms of criminal activity right there in Tennessee. We learned that what is really happening at our border is quite simple: Well-financed, operationally sophisticated drug cartels, with the help of the Chinese Communist Party, are exploiting our immigration policies and human economic desires to make billions of dollars from drug and human trafficking. Ignored by the Biden administration and the corporate media, this increasingly powerful criminal enterprise is expanding further into American communities. Our trip revealed two key insights. First, under Biden policies, this national security crisis is unmanageable. Second, and paradoxically, this crisis is well within the Federal Government's ability to fix. My central takeaway was this: If every American saw what we saw and heard, this would end. America wouldn't tolerate this. It is a crisis. Here is the cartels' business model: Fentanyl ingredients are shipped from China to Mexico. In Mexico, the cartels turn these chemicals into astonishingly potent drugs bound for the United States. Last year, fentanyl seized at the border was more than enough to kill every American. And that is just what we caught. Think about what has not been caught. Think about what is getting through. The cartels control the entire Mexican side of the U.S. border, and each migrant must pay thousands of dollars for safe passage to these cartels. Often, they have to pay through subsequent indentured servitude. Many young women become victims of human trafficking. So in this vicious cycle, the more illegal immigration, the more money for the cartels; and the more money for the cartels, the more drugs they produce. For cartels, the illegal immigrants are more than an expendable revenue source. They are a tool for facilitating transport of drugs and criminals. The cartels push scores of migrant customers across the border so they can occupy American border agents. Then they exploit the resulting gaps in patrol coverage to move across drugs, gang members, those they refer to as ``high-value'' individuals, terrorist-watch-list members, and others. Border Patrol agents told me that, given the recordbreaking border crossings they are currently facing, there are times when every agent is busy processing migrant paperwork, leaving the border wide open for drug and human trafficking. The drugs and gang members and the accompanying violence will then flood into our American communities. As one agent put it: The people crossing the border don't stay in this area, and neither do the drugs. More than 100,000 Americans died last year from drug overdoses, mostly from fentanyl, which are really more akin to CCP-engineered poisonings. Several thousands were Tennesseans. The Tennessee sheriffs and mayors on this trip told me that deaths from illicit drug overdoses in their counties are at record highs. Our Tennessee sheriffs know the families in their communities. They told me the toughest part of their job is to see a mother or a grandmother, to go to their home and tell them that their son or their grandson will never return. It is heartbreaking. Each one of these obituaries has the CCP's fingerprint on it. The migrants' money and usefulness to distract border agents are essential to the cartels' operations. These illegal immigrants are incentivized to come because of our current catch-and-release policies. To illustrate the current policy of absurdity, last Friday, around midnight, near a stretch of--of course--unfinished border wall, right outside of McAllen, TX, our vehicle came across about 15 recently arrived migrants. They approached us and asked us where they could find the Border Patrol agents. They wanted to turn themselves in, having been coached by their cartel handlers that this was the first step to U.S. Government-funded release into America. Our policies are so upside-down that the suspects are looking for the officers. Nevertheless, U.S. Border Patrol and other law enforcement Agencies are working tirelessly day and night to protect our Nation. Understandably, morale is at an all-time low with a Biden administration that refuses to give them the tools that they need to deal with this crisis. Border Patrol can process a maximum of roughly 5,000 migrants a day. Right now, they are facing nearly 8,000 migrants a day. And when the Biden administration lifts title 42 authority, they fear that the number could exceed 15,000 per day. Therefore, and unsurprisingly, the constant plea I heard from Border Patrol agents was this: We need effective policy, not more agents, not more equipment. Bad policies are what have created this incentive to cross the border, and eliminating these policies is the only fix. Our agents signed up to protect our border, not to facilitate its demise. Border agents in Laredo told me that the Migrant Protection Protocols, known as MPP, were a perfect illustration of the need for policy change. MPP was a policy that required migrants seeking asylum in the United States to remain in Mexico until it was determined whether or not they were actually entitled to asylum. Most are not. When it was implemented in 2019, the agent said it was like flipping a switch because this stopped people coming when they knew that they wouldn't get in. This ``Remain in Mexico'' policy cut illegal border crossings dramatically in fiscal year 2020. Yet the Biden administration nixed the MPP, and, not surprisingly, border crossings more than quadrupled in fiscal year 2021. With the help of their media allies, Washington Democrats ignore this crisis and they hope that the American people will too. They don't travel to the border because they don't want to answer for the crisis that they have created. They have chosen appeasement of loud, radical immigration groups over American security, over American sovereignty. President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris haven't seen the border stations where the agents sacrifice day and night, mentally and physically, battling a crisis that their Departments haven't given them the tools to address. For many Americans, this crisis seems far away, at least until it is too late--until it is their child, their grandchild, their brother and sister who become a statistic. That is the other thing that I heard constantly from Border Patrol and law enforcement agents: We need someone to tell America what is happening here. With the President and media averting their eyes and abdicating their responsibilities, it becomes even more critical to spread the word before more American lives are needlessly lost, before more migrants' lives are destroyed in the journey or through indentured servitude once they arrive, and more communities are damaged beyond repair. So what can we do to address this crisis? Even though the border cries is worse than ever, the Biden administration is voluntarily ending title 42 pandemic-related authority for expedited removal. The Border Patrol agents I met this weekend believe that this will make this recordbreaking crisis substantially worse. Such a surrender of American security would be intolerable. And there is another health crisis that title 42 is critical to battling. The cartels send migrants across at strategic points to bog down Border Patrol agents with paperwork processing that takes five times longer without title 42. Then they use the resulting enforcement gaps to move fentanyl across the border. We have to close these enforcement gaps with better policy. So I have introduced legislation to add drug smuggling as an additional basis for title 42 authority. Overdoses have become an epidemic in America. This legislation would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to use title 42 to combat drug trafficking across the border. This bill would give our Border Patrol agents the tools they need to quickly remove migrants who illegally cross the border, substantially freeing up agents to focus on actually stopping drug traffickers. More than 100,000 Americans died last year from drug overdoses, many from fentanyl coming from across our southern border. We desperately need title 42 to fight this drug epidemic. It is a tool that would quite literally save American lives in every State in the Union immediately. So, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 3959 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague from Hawaii for his remarks, but I want to explain what just happened here. My colleague objects, despite the fact that recordbreaking numbers of Americans are currently dying from overdoses, fueled by fentanyl coming across our border. This legislation is a tool to help save American lives. Indeed, 100,000 American lives were lost last year to drug overdoses. These lives are being deprived of the American dream forever. So Democrats are categorically opposed to commonsense border security tools to prevent drug trafficking into America no matter how bad the drug overdose numbers get? How much longer will it take to change course from the Biden administration policies that have created this national security crisis? How much longer will we allow our immigration system to be manipulated by a massive transnational criminal alliance between the Chinese communists and billion-dollar cartels who are shipping deadly quantities of illicit drugs into the United States? I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, much of the news media today is focused on Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine--and rightfully so--but not enough attention is being paid to negotiations that are happening today and have been happening in Vienna. The Biden administration seems dead set on reviving, at any cost, the Iran nuclear deal. Worse, President Biden's chief negotiator Rob Malley--who, I observe, is not a Senate-confirmed official--outsourced our negotiations for reviving this flawed Iran deal to the Russians. This is outrageous. Let me get this straight. We are working hand in glove with Vladimir Putin to reach a deal that will help Russia evade sanctions being imposed for its aggression in Ukraine and work with its ally Iran. This is not the way to protect the safety and the interest of the American people. This is what Russia's chief negotiator to the Iran talks had to say about what he has accomplished for the Biden administration: I am absolutely sincere in this regard when I say that Iran got much more than it could expect, much more. He recently told reporters, adding: Realistically speaking, Iran got more than, frankly, I expected or others expected. This is a matter of fact. Again, this is Russia's chief negotiator making this statement. Most alarmingly, this revived deal would pave Iran's path to a nuclear weapon. News reports also suggest that the revived deal would quickly unleash $90 billion in frozen funds to Iran--again, the world's biggest state-sponsor of terrorism. Moreover, Iran can expect to earn roughly $50 billion annually in renewed oil exports. It is unconscionable that the Biden administration appears more eager to unleash the energy production in Venezuela and Iran than right here in America. The Biden administration is so stubborn and blinded by its ideological green energy fantasies that it would rather work with terrorists and dictators--folks with some of the worst human rights records in history--than admit it was a mistake to abandon America's energy independence. This administration would rather work with killers than with American drillers. As before, the Iranian regime will use this massive windfall of sanctions relief to fund terrorism and aggression against our ally Israel, against our Arab partners, and against Americans serving in the Middle East. Let me be clear. The Trump administration was right to withdraw us from the Iran nuclear deal in May of 2018. But I am not here today to debate the pros and cons of resurrecting the Iran deal. We will likely have that debate in the days to come, probably sooner than most people think. Rather, I am here today to argue for preserving the role that Congress--amid concerns that the Biden administration will not submit their new Iran nuclear deal for review and for an up-or-down vote--that Congress must maintain its role as required by U.S. law. If news reports are to be believed, the Biden administration may be nearing the end of negotiations for an agreement to resuscitate the Iran deal. As Reuters reported recently: The draft text of the agreement, which is more than 20 pages long, stipulates a sequence of steps to be implemented . . . In 2014 and 2015, many lawmakers passionately argued that the original Iran deal should have been submitted to the Senate as a treaty, requiring our advice and consent under the U.S. Constitution. But because the Obama administration refused to follow the Constitution, Congress was compelled to enact the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, or INARA. INARA passed the Senate in a 99-to-1 vote--99 to 1. This is nearly unanimous, a bipartisan vote that reflects how frustrated the Senate is that the executive branch was trying to circumvent Congress on such an important matter. INARA clearly requires that any agreement--I repeat, any agreement--related to the nuclear program of Iran should be submitted to the Senate and to the House for congressional review, including for an up-or-down vote. It is beyond debate that the Biden administration is required by law to submit any new agreement for reviving the Iran deal to Congress for congressional review, but the Biden administration has not clearly committed that it will submit whatever agreement it is negotiating in Vienna for our review and an up-or-down vote by Congress. If the Biden administration refuses to submit its new Iran agreement to Congress, it will be ignoring the law and undermining the role of this body in foreign policy. Last year, I was concerned this might happen. That is why I introduced the Iran Sanctions Relief Review Act of 2020. My bill borrows a provision from the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA, an act that overwhelmingly passed Congress in 2017. The CAATSA provision allows for congressional review and an up-or- down vote on any Presidential waiver of Russia's sanctions. My bill takes word-for-word that same provision and applies it to any Presidential waiver of Iran sanctions. This is important because any new agreement to revive the Iran deal will require once again the executive branch to waive Iran sanctions. In other words, my bill protects the role of Congress if the executive branch ignores INARA and refuses to submit the new agreement to the Senate and to the House. So far, 37 Senators have cosponsored the Iran Sanctions Relief Review Act with me. This number is significant because 37 Senators would be more than enough to deny the Senate's advice and consent if the executive branch actually followed the Constitution and presented a new Iran agreement to the Senate as a treaty. I urge my colleagues who have not yet cosponsored the Iran Sanctions Relief Review Act to join me and to do so. We must protect the first branch of government from an executive branch that seeks to encroach upon it or even to ignore it. I also remind the Biden administration, the Iranian regime, and the world of a fact that should be patently obvious by now: Any agreement to revive the Iran nuclear deal that lacks the Senate's advice and consent under the Constitution--that is, that lacks the support of 67 Senators--will not survive multiple Presidential administrations. It will be ripped up just like it was the last time. And I have zero doubt that, as before, the next Presidential administration will end this deal again and will snap back sanctions--with a vengeance--against the Iranian regime and those countries that were foolish enough to trade with it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, I rose in this Chamber 2 weeks ago to again urge the Senate to reopen the U.S. Capitol and to reopen the Senate office buildings. At that time, Democrats objected to my resolution in support of reopening. Two weeks later, it has become even more clear that the American public is tired of government mandates and of COVID shutdowns. Democrats have exploited the pandemic to execute a power grab over American life--a power grab that allows Democrats to dictate whether children can attend schools, whether Americans can keep their jobs and operate their businesses, and how elections are conducted. These Big Government lockdowns and mandates have caused irreparable damage that will be felt for generations to come. As we move ahead, we mustn't lose sight of this lesson. On the bright side, even the Biden administration is seeing the poll numbers, and they are adjusting the science accordingly. On Friday, the CDC changed its guidance once again. Now indoor masks are not recommended for most Americans. Masks are no longer required on either side of the Capitol Building. Why, even Washington, DC, has opened up and lifted its mask mandate. Amazingly, all of this happened just in time for the State of the Union Address. The only science that is being followed here is the political science, but, thankfully, America is returning to normal. Americans everywhere are safely living their lives--going to work and school, visiting stores, attending events, and gathering with their families and their friends. They shouldn't have to know somebody in order to visit their Representatives, to take a tour of the Capitol, to get into this building. It is time for the lockdown on democracy to come to an end. Today, I am once again asking my colleagues to rejoin reality and reopen the Capitol to those to whom it belongs--the American people. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 512.

Mr. HAGERTY. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, I am glad that the Senate has agreed to my resolution to reopen the Capitol, and I urge the House of Representatives to pass a very similar resolution that was introduced in that body so that all parts of the Capitol Complex are open to the American people. I also stand ready to work with my colleagues and with the Capitol Police to implement this resolution so that we can welcome the American people back into their Capitol as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 512, submitted earlier today. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, for nearly 2 years, the U.S. Capitol Building and Senate offices have been largely closed to the American people whom we serve. Our constituents have been unable to enter the Senate buildings to meet with their representatives, and Americans of all ages, from schoolchildren to seniors, have been deprived of the patriotic sense of wonderment that comes from visiting the hallowed halls of the Capitol Building. The openness of the Halls of Congress and public participation in the legislative process have always been hallmarks of American democracy. It is long past time for the Senate to reopen its doors to the American people. Thanks to Operation Warp Speed, vaccines have been available for more than a year for those who want them. Americans have learned how to safely gather and enter public places despite the pandemic. Over 70,000 people attended the Super Bowl in Los Angeles on Sunday, in fact. Yet there are reports that some of the leadership in this building want to significantly limit the number of lawmakers who are allowed to attend President Biden's State of the Union Address in just a couple of weeks. From stores to venues and most workplaces and schools, the rest of the United States has reopened to gatherings and regular business. Shouldn't the Senate, whose buildings belong to the public, do the same? That is why I have introduced a resolution providing that the Senate, first, recognizes the importance of reopening the Capitol and Senate office buildings to the public and, second, supports returning to the pre-COVID visitor policies for areas within Senate jurisdiction. I am pleased that 26 of my colleagues have joined me as cosponsors of this resolution. Importantly, if there are operational matters that need to be worked out as part of reopening, this resolution provides no obstacle to doing so. It simply states that the Senate supports reopening and recognizes the importance of doing so. I am asking my colleagues to join me today in support of the access to American democracy and a return to normal life and in opposition to endless pandemic lockdown, and I am pleased to be joined here today by my colleague from Indiana.

Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, I greatly respect my colleague from Minnesota, and I have enjoyed working with her on the Rules Committee, but her objection to this resolution provides an unfortunate but clear answer: No, Democrats don't support reopening the Senate. Hopefully sometime soon, my Democratic colleagues will wake up to the fact that Americans are sick of endless lockdowns and the condescending message that it sends to the American people that they need government to tell them what to do. With regard to the objection that we need a more measured process in consultation with various officials, I talked to the Capitol Police Chief last week, and we can work with his team and the Sergeant at Arms to address any specific operational issues. We can also work with the Attending Physician. All of that is downstream of the basic question here, which is whether the Senate supports reopening. If the Senate supports reopening, then we can figure out the rest. Senate leadership sets the policy for the Capitol Building and the office buildings that are under Senate jurisdiction. That is why we have different COVID policies than the House. If it was up to the Attending Physician or the Capitol Police, the policy probably wouldn't change at the midpoint of the Capitol Building, as it does today. We are the elected officials in the building. We are the ones who were elected to make decisions. We shouldn't dodge that responsibility, and we need to lead by making a clear statement that it is time to reopen the Senate to our constituents. It is unfortunate that many of my Democratic colleagues don't feel the same way. We need to reopen the Senate now. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I am here today to address Democrat leadership's effort to demolish the Senate rules and structure, and thereby destroy the world's greatest deliberative body. Their ploy would silence millions of Americans, and it would substantially harm our Nation. Abolishing the filibuster would end the Senate's unique role in American Government, which has kept us on the steady course of becoming a more perfect union for the past 230 years. This unique role is to ensure that Federal legislation, covering all 50 States, requires careful debate and broad support, often reflecting compromise, so that American policy is durable and lasting. That way, as the senior Senator from Arizona put it in her courageous and patriotic remarks last week, we avoid ``wild reversals in Federal policy'' every few years on the basis of bare majorities, which would make our government far less effective and our economy far less stable. Democrats know how integral the filibuster is to American Government. Democrats have said it themselves. Eliminating the filibuster would ``be the end of the Senate.'' That is a direct quote from the senior Senator from Illinois in 2018. The Democratic leader, before assuming his current position, said that eliminating the filibuster would ``be a doomsday for democracy.'' And President Biden, when he was Senator Biden, said that to eliminate the filibuster would be ``the arrogance of power.'' Apparently, he is now suffering from such arrogance. Until they took control of the Senate last year, most Democrats passionately advocated for preserving this critical Senate rule. That is because it enables our representative government to function and reflect the will of the people. Indeed, in 2017, when there was a Republican in the Oval Office and a Republican majority in the Senate, 32 Democrats, including then-Senator Kamala Harris, signed a letter supporting the filibuster. During the Trump administration, Democrats routinely used the filibuster to block Republican legislation, including bills on police reform, border security, and late-term abortions; important bills that impacted life, sovereignty, and community safety--certainly, bills that Republicans wanted to enact. Yet, when met with the filibuster, Republicans didn't change the rules on a completely partisan basis. Republicans didn't tear down this institution in order to score short-term partisan political points, and Republicans certainly didn't use cheap demagoguery to create a fake hysteria to justify doing so. Yet now that Democrats are in the majority, nearly every one of those 32 Democrats has completely reversed himself or herself, with a few notable exceptions. Why? Because this is about one thing: Power. Doing the exact same thing is a doomsday for democracy when it is a bill they oppose, but it is essential to save democracy when it is a bill they support. It is about power. There doesn't seem to be a power grab that is too extreme for the modern left, whether it is abolishing the filibuster, packing the Supreme Court, or making the District of Columbia a State. There is no institution that they aren't willing to destroy. This is shameful because Democrat leaders' past statements show that they know that destroying the Senate would be disastrous for our Nation. Let's call this what it is. It is worse than a solution in search of a problem. It is a power grab in search of a crisis. In this case, they had to manufacture a crisis to justify the power grab. They have been trying to pass this bill for years. Democrat operatives first introduced a version of this bill on January 24, 2017, 4 days after President Trump was elected to office. It was part of their scorched-earth policy to challenge the 2016 election results, clinging to the false claims of Russian collusion. Since then, they have continued to maniacally, and on a wholly partisan basis, push this electioneering fantasy. Even though this bill is about keeping power, they use whatever justification is most convenient at the moment. In 2017, it was President Trump and Russia. In 2020, it was the pandemic. And now, it is the preposterous claim that returning to prepandemic voting practices is the end of democracy. This election takeover would impose taxpayer-funded campaigns. It prohibits overwhelmingly popular, commonsense State voter ID laws. What does nullifying voter ID laws and handing out taxpayer-funded campaign dollars have to do with voting rights? Last night, the senior Senator from Virginia pointed out that Republicans have always led the way on voting rights. So why not now? Because this bill isn't about protecting voting rights. It is about protecting politicians. This isn't the 14th Amendment. It is Washington Democrats' 14th attempt to take over elections in all 50 States for the third different reason in the last several years. Americans want laws that make it easy to vote and hard to cheat. Such laws currently exist throughout the country. That is why we had recordbreaking voter participation in 2020, including in my home State of Tennessee. So ask yourself: With more Americans voting in the last election than ever before, why is this Democrats' top priority? Why are they willing to destroy the Senate to do it? What is the real reason they are focusing on this made-up crisis, while ignoring actual crises of inflation, falling real wages, soaring energy prices, supply chain crises, a collapsed southern border, the collapse of Afghanistan, and increased authoritarian aggression around the world--real problems that actually affect the American people? Democrat leaders have tuned out those concerns. They are taking no action to address them. Think about it. Our country has the highest inflation rate in 40 years, and the Senate Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over our Nation's monetary policy, has not held a single hearing examining this topic since it began in 2021. To avoid those issues, they have created a fake crisis to take over elections--a desperate attempt at self-preservation because Americans are rejecting their agenda. That is the real reason Democrats are pushing this. It is about protecting the power of politicians here in Washington. Elections should be determined by the voters, not by the politicians. Last week, President Biden traveled to Georgia to demonize all Americans who don't submit to this hyperpartisan political agenda. He ranted that Americans who support the constitutional system of free, fair, and locally run elections are somehow bigots. In support of this scheme, the Democrat leader offers the talking point that State legislatures don't have filibuster rules so why should the U.S. Senate? The answer to this is obvious: because Federal legislation governs all 50 States, as opposed to State legislation that just affects one State. It requires broader support, more than a bare majority in a 50- 50 Senate. This is the greatest Nation on Earth, and the Senate is its compass. This isn't the Democrat leaders' political play thing. Ensuring broad support for Federal laws, which ensures American stability, is the very purpose of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, this election power grab is just the start. With the filibuster gone, Democrats would be free to enact mass amnesty, pack the Supreme Court, pack the Senate, punish law enforcement officers, and much, much more. It was my hope, coming into this new year, that the Senate would refocus on what we were elected to do: Listen to the American people and address their concerns. Yet the recent rhetoric of Democrat leadership has dispelled any such optimism. The American people deserve a government that acknowledges their concerns and works tirelessly and constructively to address them. The serious problems we face as a nation demand it. Americans want us to do our jobs. Abolishing the Senate's rules that guarantee debate and compromise would be ``the end of the Senate,'' as the senior Senator from Illinois put it. It would do irreparable harm to the fabric of our government and to the cohesion of our Nation. I hope my colleagues find the strength and the courage to maintain their previous, longstanding support for preserving the Senate's role. I hope they reject this cynical move to steamroll half of its Members and the voters they represent.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, Robert J. O'Brien, Sr., age 103, passed away on January 4, 2022. A native of Chicago, O'Brien returned home after serving in the Navy during the Second World War and graduated from DePaul University. Soon after, Mr. O'Brien joined John V. McCarthy & Co., the predecessor of R.J. O'Brien & Associates, where he focused on client and business research. By 1959, Mr. O'Brien was named President of John V. McCarthy & Co. and, in 1964, was elected to the Board of Governors of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, a position he held continuously until 1977. He served as Chairman of the Exchange from 1967 to 1968 and was inducted into the FIA Futures Hall of Fame in 2007. During his tenure on the Board of Governors, contracts on live animals were successfully introduced to the market, representing the first in a wave of innovation in contract design. He was also involved in changing the structure of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange to make it more democratic and in revitalizing the audits and investigations department to attract new exchange members. Mr. O'Brien's entrepreneurial spirit is best illustrated in his countless contributions to the futures industry as he built the largest independent futures brokerage and clearing firm in the United States. He pioneered new industry practices and created opportunity for others, including taking delivery of the first live cattle contract traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, broadcasting the first live commodity report from the trading floor, and sponsoring the first woman to work on the trading floor in 1966. The longevity of Mr. O'Brien's career and the lasting success of his company are a testament to the focus placed on the relationships that have been built with more than 80,000 clients, his employees, and his family. Mr. O'Brien is survived by five children, 22 grandchildren, and 33 great grandchildren.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Blackburn, I ask unanimous consent that the following remarks be printed in the Congressional Record to further honor the life of Andrew Franklin Alexander, the late son of former Tennessee U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the 60th anniversary and the opening of a new location of the legendary Pancake Pantry in Nashville. On December 13, the Pancake Pantry, a Nashville staple and landmark restaurant, will open a second location to offer its famous varieties of pancakes as well as begin a partnership with the Nashville Predators Foundation to support local communities. Since 1961, this iconic restaurant has brightened the mornings of both tourists and residents of the Music City and will now partner with the Nashville Predators Foundation to give back to the community. Through grants and partnerships directed towards the educational, health, and social needs of Middle Tennesseans, the Pancake Pantry is committed to supporting the local community. To show their support, special ``Nashville Predator'' pancakes will be available between January 1 and February 28, 2022, and for each order sold, the Pancake Pantry will make a monetary donation to the Nashville Predators Foundation. Established on August 18, 2009, the Nashville Predators Foundation strives to meet the needs of the local community by offering resources and financial support to youth-oriented organizations, awarding nearly $7.0 million to the greater Nashville community. Let us celebrate this announcement and commitment to helping those in need.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, on September 9, President Biden announced that his Department of Labor, through OSHA, would issue a vaccine mandate covering more than 80 million privately employed Americans. Violators would be subject to significant financial penalties. This mandate makes medical decisions for much of the American people with the stroke of a pen, and it immediately struck me as severe Federal overreach. Therefore, the next day, I wrote to the Secretary of Labor to confirm that he would submit this mandate to Congress for review under the Congressional Review Act. In that letter, I noted that Americans' elected representatives should review an order that threatens the livelihoods of many of their constituents. I am pleased to join Senator Braun and a majority of my Senate colleagues in supporting this resolution to disapprove President Biden's vaccine mandate. Regarding the mandate itself, I want to first say that I support the vaccine, which is a product of President Trump's Operation Warp Speed. I visited my doctor, and I made the personal choice to take the vaccine. I have spoken to many Tennesseans and have urged them to do the same. But the decision to take the vaccine is a personal one. It is a decision that each American should be allowed to make in consultation with his or her doctor, not under Federal threat of job loss and financial penalty. This mandate improperly puts the Federal Government between Americans and their doctors and between Americans and their jobs. Tens of millions of essential workers were asked to risk their health for the good of the country during the pandemic. They courageously responded to this call. Many of them--many of them--contracted the virus. Yet now we are telling these heroes, from frontline healthcare workers to the employees who made sure we had access to groceries and essential goods, that they will be fired unless they comply with the vaccine mandate. They deserve better. Not only is this vaccine mandate wrong, but it was promptly declared unlawful by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Other Biden administration vaccine mandates are meeting similar fates in the courts. Yet the Biden administration refuses to relent or reevaluate the damage that it is doing. Sadly, the Biden administration's use of Federal Government power to control the American people's lives is not limited to vaccine mandates; it is a basic element of their strategy to remake America. Don't believe me? Just look at the Democrats' so-called Build Back Better proposal. The Biden administration is marketing this legislation to transform America by using a cartoon depicting a mom and her son and the government programs on which they would depend under this plan from the very beginning of their lives to the very end. That is the definition of cradle-to-grave, Big Government dependency, and that is the stated goal of the Democrats' legislation. This legislation federalizes preschool and childcare, which will crowd out community- and faith-based providers and put the Federal Government in charge of what your children are taught during their most formative years. If this was about children, then parents would be allowed to choose the preschool or childcare provider that is best for their children, but, instead, it is about control. So the government would ultimately decide which preschools and which childcare providers would survive. The Build Back Better legislation increases by 10 times the penalties on private employers for violating the vaccine mandate. Now, a willful violation can result in a $700,000 fine and must result in a minimum fine of $50,000. In other words, small businesses that fail to comply will face financial ruin. When it comes to employment, if you are one of the millions of Americans who work in the oil and gas industry, the Build Back Better plan delivers $550 billion worth of crushing Green New Deal mandates and tax increases. It replaces these good-paying jobs with $8 billion to the Civilian Climate Corps, a taxpayer-funded climate police. Once your job is gone or your business is closed, the Build Back Better proposal offers government welfare programs with no work requirements. This attacks the dignity of work and right of self- determination that underscores what it means to be American--again, more government control. By providing $80 billion in increased IRS funding--a staggering six times the current IRS budget--the Biden administration is planning to wring an extra $400 billion out of the American people to pay for all of this Big Government. With everyone from small business owners to grandparents now facing regular audits and IRS spying on their bank accounts, the government will have much greater control over how Americans earn and how they spend their money. In sharp contrast, Republicans want to put Americans, not the Federal Government, in control of their lives. We want to strengthen the American dream so that Americans can free themselves from government dependency. We oppose Big Government socialism that imposes greater Federal control over Americans' lives. In the coming weeks, Members of this body will be asked a very simple question, whether on the vaccine mandate or the Build Back Better legislation: Do you believe the Federal Government should have more control over American lives? Their answers are crucial for the future of our country. Is cradle-to-grave government dependency something to help Americans avoid or is it something to strive for? Should personal healthcare decisions be made by Americans or by government agencies? Do parents know what is best for their children or should bureaucrats and teachers unions decide? Are you willing to eliminate good-paying energy jobs? Should the IRS have more power to spy on the American people? Over the next weeks, all of us must decide what kind of country we will have. My hope is that we will preserve and strengthen the American dream by empowering Americans to determine their own futures, to climb the ladder of success, and to free themselves from government dependency--not treat them with a lack of dignity that suggests that the very best they can hope for is a life managed by the Federal Government. The first opportunity to provide an answer is the upcoming vote on this resolution disapproving President Biden's vaccine mandate. I have been pleased to work with Senator Braun to bring this resolution to the floor, and I urge all of my colleagues to support its adoption. Mr. President, I yield the floor.