Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the votes in relation to H.R. 1437: Senator Lee for 5 minutes and Senator Scott for 1 minute.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, we find ourselves back in the same place. It is like deja vu all over again. We have been through this process year after year. I have been here 12 years, and it seems more often than not, we are in a very similar circumstance. We are just a few days away from Christmas, and we are being asked to move the deadline for the expiration of government funding, potentially leading to a shutdown even closer to Christmas. Today, we are being asked to move it to the day before Christmas Eve. Obviously, we need to keep the government funded. We don't want a shutdown. No one wants a shutdown. A shutdown would be particularly bad at this time of year. It would be horrible for our constituents, people who rely on the government for a paycheck or for this or that program. It would all be bad, and we all feel the weight of that. We also feel the weight, as we approach Christmas, of wanting to be able to make good on our promises to our families to spend the holidays with them rather than here in Washington. As a result of that, every year, knowing this, there seem to be people who want to make sure that all spending decisions are wrapped into one spending bill. Very often, those are wrapped together in one omnibus spending package and then held off until a day or two-- sometimes just hours--before the government is set to shut down. That is when the magic happens. But it is not good magic; it is really bad magic. That is when these twin threats of sacrificing Christmas on the one hand or running into a government shutdown on the other hand--they operate like paired scissor blades to cut through what would otherwise be an insurmountable task. And that task involves convincing Senators to vote for a bill 3,000-plus pages long--likely this year containing 7,500 or so earmarks--a bill that they have never seen; a bill that does not, as we speak right now, exist without ever having seen it. We all know that this is wrong. We all know that this is a corrupt way to run a government. This is a corrupt process that brings about all kinds of special interest giveaways. And in the absence of the light of day, they pass with the threat--the extorted threat--of a government shutdown or canceling Christmas--Members end up voting for that which they know they have no business supporting. That is why my amendment is simple. My amendment simply gives us the flexibility to make these decisions not under duress, to make these decisions with clarity of mind and not influenced by this dual threat of a shutdown and cancellation of Christmas. Now, look, whether you are for this omnibus bill that has yet to come into existence, that has yet to make a public appearance to see the light of day--whether you are for it or against it, you should support my amendment, because if you support my amendment, you are just giving us more flexibility. The American people deserve nothing less than to allow us to make decisions consciously, knowingly, under the light of day, with clarity of mind, and not under duress. That is what my amendment affords them, extending this out to March 10.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1437, with amendment numbered 6541, as modified, with the changes at the desk.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, we will be voting in a moment on my amendment. Again, this amendment is something that everyone in this Chamber should be able to support, whether you like the omnibus or whether you hate the omnibus. The Senate should be in a position to be able to review the omnibus with a clear head without the pressure of an imminent threat at Christmastime of a shutdown. The American people deserve this, and so do we. This is the only way to make this right. I encourage all of you to vote for my amendment.

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

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jonathan McKernan, a detailee on the Banking Committee, be given floor privileges throughout the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Winston Churchill said: We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us. The men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces sign up for no small task. They join to serve their country; not for money, not for fame, not because it is glamorous in any way. They sign up because they understand that Winston Churchill was right--that the blessings of a free society are possible only if there are those willing to put the safety and well-being of their country ahead of their own safety and ahead of their own lives when necessary. That solemn, sacred responsibility, the responsibility that every member of our Armed Forces has committed so nobly to upholding, deserves our utmost respect. Regrettably, on August 9 of 2021, the Secretary of Defense issued a message to the force indicating his intent to require COVID-19 vaccination for all servicemembers. This mandate went into effect on August 24, 2021. There were a lot of promises made at the time--promises suggesting that individual needs would be taken into account; individual needs including good-faith, sincerely held religious beliefs that might make it impossible for a servicemember to be vaccinated without violating his or her sincerely held convictions. Unfortunately, it hasn't really panned out that way, as I will explain in a moment. But in a nutshell, since the implementation of this vaccine mandate over almost the last year and a half, the United States military has dismissed 8,200 servicemembers for declining to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. That is over 8,000--more than 8,200--individuals, and it is not just the individuals themselves. Many, if not most, of these individuals themselves are mothers or fathers. They have got mouths to feed, families to care for--all of whom are placed in a really unfair position as a result of this mandate. Serving our country shouldn't require you to surrender your fundamental right to make medical decisions that are right for you, no matter the reason, and yet that is precisely what the Department of Defense continues to do. My office has received hundreds of accounts from brave members of our Armed Forces detailing the hardships and the retaliation they have experienced for declining to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. One first sergeant in the Air Force writes: I was involuntarily separated and my enlistment was curtailed. I was a First Sergeant with the U.S. Air Force Reserves at the time the COVID mandate was put into place. I did everything I could to be allowed to continue to serve my country. I filed my Religious AR, and when it got denied, I also filed an appeal, and that got denied. She goes on: All I wanted to do was to continue to take care of the members of my squadron and continue to serve this great country. Likewise, a Marine officer writes: My family was forced to move on very short notice back to the U.S. from Okinawa, Japan due to the loss of a job and the threat of travel restriction if we remained unvaccinated. . . . Many are far worse off than me. Another lieutenant colonel with the Marine Corps Reserve was placed on ``inactive status'' with ``no warning or notice that this would happen'' and in the process lost TRICARE health insurance that his family relies on to provide expensive medical supplies for his special needs daughter, even though his appeal for a religious exemption was and is--remains still today--pending. It seems in this and other circumstances, the Department of Defense has issued something of a pocket veto, not acting on these requests for an exemption but instead refusing to act and therefore leaving the servicemember with few options. This person writes: My entire family was--was without notice or warning-- dropped from TriCare left scrambling to find health insurance. These brave men and women represent just a tiny fraction of the servicemembers who have reached out to my office. Many are in desperation. They are pleading for someone to recognize the injustice they are experiencing. They deserve better, and we owe them more than this. So, as we consider this year's National Defense Authorization Act, the blueprint for the defense budget that directs policy for our military, we should adopt this simple amendment that would: No. 1, immediately repeal the COVID vaccine mandate; No. 2, prohibit DOD from replacing the current COVID-19 vaccine mandate with a similar mandate absent express congressional approval; No. 3, provide remedies for any servicemember negatively impacted by the mandate, including the right to reinstatement, if desired, and to petition for a change in status if they received a negative discharge based on whether or not they were vaccinated, correcting for any loss of rank, pay or retirement benefits; and, No. 4, require the DOD to make every effort to retain unvaccinated servicemembers. We, of course, can't take back the hardship that the military vaccine mandate has inflicted on countless servicemembers. We can't do that. That is in the past. But there are some things we can do. By adopting this amendment, we can recognize an injustice and take steps to restore the affected brave men and women who deserve our best. We owe them that, and we owe them so much more. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and stand with those who themselves ``stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.'' It is the right thing to do.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, this Friday at midnight, the government will run out of funding. That leaves us with just a few options. One, we could pass the massive, yet-to-be-drafted, Pelosi-Schumer omnibus spending package, leaving the outgoing Democratic House majority in charge of drafting the bill to fund the Federal Government for the balance of fiscal year 2023, despite the fact that voters sent a clear message this November disapproving of the fiscal direction of our Federal Government. Two, we could, yet again, pass another short-term stopgap measure that just kicks the can down the road for one more week to allow more backroom negotiations to take place, in secret. To be clear, this accomplishes nothing. It is simply a way to whip up support for another inflated spending package. So when I say it accomplishes nothing, that is not really true. It is very effective at doing some things. It marshals very effectively the angst of hundreds of millions of Americans who don't want a government shutdown. A lot of these people depend on the Federal Government remaining open to process--whether it is the paychecks for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, or others who have contract with the government or receive payments from the government of one sort or another or otherwise impacted by the Federal Government's inability to operate during a shutdown. They all have something to worry about. They all have reasons to fear a shutdown. And those anxieties end up being transferred onto their elected representatives in the House of Representatives and in the Senate who in turn fear a shutdown for the same reasons and feel the collective weight of those concerns bearing down on them. But there is a dual threat that takes place here. You see, those who may be coming to the Senate floor in the next day or two to propose exactly this, option 2--that is, to just kick the can down the road for another week, for another 1-week spending measure--will be coming down here, predictably, foreseeably, in the name of avoiding a shutdown. But make no mistake, when saying that they want to delay spending, they want to delay any shutdown by another week, they are not really saying we don't want the threat of a shutdown. They are saying we want to move the threat of a shutdown, the possibility of a shutdown, closer to Christmas. Why Christmas? Well, that is when the anxiety of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress are at their maximum. That is where we all feel it the most. We all feel the pressure to get something done the most. And that is also where Members of Congress, being human, understandably, want to be able to get home in time for Christmas, to spend the Christmas holidays with their families. And it is this dual threat that very often, year after year, is used to persuade Members of Congress to vote for a spending bill that spends too much money and that does so through a mechanism that they have had no part in; that they have been excluded from; that they would never vote for in the absence of this dual threat of a shutdown at Christmastime. No, this isn't right. When we do that to the American people, what you are really doing is cutting them out of the process. When you cut the people's elected representatives in Congress who have been elected by the American people to take care of these things for them so that they don't have to worry about it and then you tell them we are not going to give those you elect any opportunity to have meaningful input into a spending bill which we are going to present to them at Christmastime in order to force a nonexistent consensus behind something they know they shouldn't vote for, that is wrong. It has gone on over and over again, and it has to stop. It must stop now. So that is option 2--suboptimal, to say the least. Option 3. We could do the right thing, and we could pass a continuing resolution that keeps the government funded, maintaining current spending levels until after we have sworn in the new Congress, including the Republican House majority, early next year. It is only this latter option--only the third option--that makes any sense at all. And it is only this third option that is fair to voters. You see, for the last 2 years, we have seen unprecedented inflation driven by reckless government spending, and we have seen that moving forward in a way that has crushed American families. Our national debt has grown during those 2 years by about $4 trillion, reaching an astronomical $31 trillion--a figure that we just reached within the last few days. In Utah, inflation costs the average household a thousand dollars a month every single month, relative to the day that Joe Biden took office. They are not, for the most part, people who just have an extra thousand dollars to burn, nor is the extra thousand dollars a month going toward luxury items. No, it is just groceries, housing, gasoline, healthcare--the basic things that the American people need in order to live. Simply put, the American people can't afford the policies of the last few years. They certainly can't afford the kinds of spending bills that get passed when we use this dual threat of the shutdown threatened at Christmastime under an artificially imposed deadline. Unsurprisingly, American voters cast their votes and in so doing signaled that they want the government to go in a new direction. After listening to an exhaustive list of excuses from the Biden administration, blaming inflation on everything from the pandemic to Putin, the American people saw through the smoke and mirrors. They voted for accountability and made it clear that they expect their elected representatives to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, if this body just goes right ahead and passes another omnibus spending bill, a bill that we know is coming, a bill that we know is going to be thousands of pages long, a bill that we know that we will receive, at the most, maybe a day or two before we are expected to vote on it, with no intervening committee debate or discussion or opportunity for amendment--this body, if it chooses to enact such legislation, will be ignoring those legitimate desires on the part of the voters. We are witnessing a conspicuous recurring trend, whereby leaders use the threat of a government shutdown to pressure Members into voting for inflated spending provisions without even time to read the bill, much less without giving them any time to consult with those they represent about how they feel about that spending and those policies. So does this tactic remind you of anything? Well, it should. How about Speaker Pelosi's now infamous statement about ObamaCare when she said: You know, we have to pass the bill in order to find out what is in it. We all know how that turned out--not well. Like ObamaCare, the resulting omnibus legislation that results from that kind of attitude, that kind of dismissive approach--dismissive not just to individual Members but of those whom they represent--always contains ideologically driven provisions, utterly unrelated to the budget, many of which could never pass if they had to withstand the light of day if they had to be voted on of their own merit. We cannot, we must not, we should never use the threat of a government shutdown to force through policy changes that could never survive a vote on their own merit. I believe we should pass--we must pass--a clean continuing resolution, one that will take us into the next Congress. Failure to do so will lock the remainder of this fiscal year into a pattern in which liberal policies and an inflationary spending agenda, crammed through by unaccountable Members of Congress, many of whom have just lost reelection or didn't seek it--all those things will descend upon the American people in a most unfavorable and unwelcomed way. We can't let that happen. I don't want to be any part of that. I don't think most of our colleagues on either side of the aisle do. Not only would it be poor form and unwise and inconsiderate and really unkind for Congress to pass a massive spending bill, but it would also be without precedent in modern U.S. history. You know, since 1954, the party in control of the House of Representatives has shifted from one party to another a total of just five times since 1954. In exactly zero of those instances did Congress go back after that election and during a lameduck session enact sweeping, comprehensive spending legislation. Not one instance since 1954 has that happened. Not once has there been an instance where Congress did that before a newly elected House majority could be sworn in. We can pass a continuing resolution that doesn't include any of the new partisan agenda items that either side has proposed. It would keep the government running until the new Congress can develop a full-year discretionary budget--one that is agreeable to both sides or at least has been adequately vetted on both sides and with our constituents, with input from Members of both political parties and both Chambers of Congress. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this short-term continuing resolution that maintains current spending levels until the new Congress takes office. Doing so will ensure that we listen to the people's voices and that the incoming House majority has the opportunity to make the spending decisions that are in the best interests of the American people. We owe them nothing less. Mr. President, to that end, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 5244, which is at the desk; 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. LEE. Mr. President, in closing this discussion, I just want to respond to a couple of points made by my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Vermont. Senator Leahy is someone I have really enjoyed working with throughout my 12 years in the Senate, and I will miss him when he is gone. I respectfully but very strongly disagree with his decision to object to this commonsense approach toward avoiding a government shutdown, and I want to make clear just a few things. No. 1, this continuing resolution is not preclusive of anything else he may want to do. It doesn't preclude anyone from still working to pass an omnibus. It, rather, provides a safety net so that Congress doesn't produce a government shutdown and, just as importantly, so that Members don't feel coerced into this dual threat of having to navigate between the Scylla of a threatened shutdown and the Charybdis of people having to cancel their holiday plans with their families. That is what we are trying to avoid. So it is a false choice to say that this doesn't allow for anything else. That is just not true. Now, I disagree with him about his desire to pass an omnibus because that omnibus doesn't yet exist. There still isn't an agreement on it. The bill has yet to exist and has yet to see the light of day, not only to the public but to all but four Members of the United States Congress. That is what I object to. But make no mistake: What we are proposing today, what we are reasonably suggesting today, would not preclude a subsequent omnibus; it would just take away the shutdown threat--which is exactly my point, which is exactly my concern. When we do this sort of thing--without speaking to anyone's subjective motives; I can't read other people's minds, but I do know that this pattern has been used before. It is a tried-and-true process by which people convince their colleagues to vote for things they would never otherwise vote for because, typically, we don't like to vote on things that we haven't seen and spend trillions of dollars. My colleague from Vermont also refers to the fact that he has had lengthy conversations with a number of colleagues coming to him with their concerns. That is great. I appreciate that. That is a very appropriate thing for any Senator to do, particularly the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. As great as that is, that isn't legislating. That doesn't substitute for actual floor debate, and it sure as heck doesn't substitute for transparency and accountability, allowing the American people to see what they are going to be spending their money on. We are going to get, in a matter of days, probably in about a week-- usually, they don't give us more time than that--a bill. It will be 2,000 or 3,000 pages long, and it will spend probably 1.6 or $1.7 trillion. And the American people understand that 2,000 or 3,000 pages of appropriations legislative text does not read like a fast-paced novel. Nobody is going to have a chance to review this, and that is the problem. So the fact that he is meeting with individual Members, hearing their concerns, and talking about possible tradeoffs--that is great, but it doesn't provide what the American people need. Next, he appeals to the sense of the good things that will be in the bill, talking about the need to fund efforts to combat opioid abuse and addiction and the need to fund law enforcement--great things, great things--but we haven't seen the legislative text, and the fact that there may be good things in the bill funding good causes that would benefit good, deserving beneficiaries doesn't mean that the bill as a whole makes any sense. He also says, with some defiance and indignation, that he is not going to settle for another short-term CR, that short-term CRs are a bad way of doing things, and he is not OK with a short-term CR. It is a good point. I am not either. I don't like them. It is a default. But we have been on a short-term CR since September 30. That is 2\1/ 2\ months. So I don't comprehend exactly where he would draw the line between a short-term CR that is acceptable and one that isn't. So 2\1/ 2\ months is just fine but a few more weeks isn't? I suspect it is going to be fine when somebody comes to the floor and asks for a 1-week, short-term CR--a 1-week, short-term spending bill. That is wrong. Why? Because it moves the threat of a shutdown that much closer to Christmas when Members most want to get out of town and when the American people and those they elect to represent them here are most concerned about a shutdown. That is coercive. That isn't trying to avoid a shutdown. No. That is playing with fire. That is presenting as a feature, not a bug, the risk of a shutdown. It is wrong, and it has to stop. Look, the objective today--I hope he will reconsider. This isn't right. We know it isn't right. Those who elected us, whether we are Republicans or Democrats deserve better. They don't deserve this.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, charter schools have seen explosive growth since they first came onto the scene in 1992 as a model for education. In 1993, there were just 23 charter schools in the United States, serving a little over 6,000 students. Today, there are over 7,000 charter schools and counting, serving more than 3 million American students. It is not difficult to understand their increasing popularity. They offer an affordable alternative to parents and students who want more options. More options increase competition, and more options improve the quality of the traditional public education system. Unfortunately, the Biden administration's new rule threatens to stifle their progress by imposing stringent, onerous, burdensome new requirements on charter schools, specifically those that receive grants under the Federal Charter Schools Program, or CSP. This is a terrible idea. The CSP was established to provide grants to eligible charter schools to help ensure that all children have access to quality education regardless of their ZIP Code. The administration's new rules would stifle this proven, emerging, and burgeoning model, one that serves millions of the most vulnerable students in our traditional public school system. It would require CSP grantees to hold hearings--to hold hearings--specifically to prove that the presence of the school in question does not or would not contribute to increased racial segregation. This would impose a deliberately costly and inherently unfairly accusatory burden on charter schools and would disincentivize new schools from opening. This, I fear, is precisely the point. That is a feature, not a bug, in this program. Look, everyone can agree that we want our children to have access to quality education. The President's rule is antithetical to that very mission. The rule treats charter schools as if they have done something wrong, as if they are guilty somehow of racial segregation until they prove themselves innocent. The accusation of racial segregation is particularly egregious here because CSP schools are required to admit students through a lottery system if there are more interested students than there are available slots at the school. Clearly, this isn't an observation of reality but an injection of woke politics into an issue as fundamental as the education of America's schoolchildren. Most charter schools are doing their best to provide quality education to all students, regardless of race or ethnicity. Punishing them for behavior that they don't engage in simply isn't fair. It is not right. These regulations would also require the Secretary to examine whether a charter school is ``needed.'' Maybe I am old-fashioned, but I tend to think that parents--and certainly not the U.S. Secretary of Education-- should be the ones deciding the necessity of such schools. You know, we have seen this in other areas, other sectors of our economy. There are special interests that tend to stifle competition by pushing for regulations requiring new market entrants to demonstrate that they meet a need, to demonstrate that their facility of one sort or another, a hospital or otherwise, is ``needed.'' I fear this requirement would do the same, and I fear this requirement has as its object the same thing as those other requirements in other industries: stifling competition, erecting barriers to entry, squelching competition. This is not OK. I don't think it is OK in any industry. It is certainly not OK where the victims are innocent schoolchildren who just need to learn, who need to be taught, need to go to school somewhere, and ought to be able to go to school with some options that their parents can have a role in choosing. Proponents of these rules argue that the regulations are necessary because charter schools are more likely to close than traditional public schools. They rightly argue that such closures can be disruptive to students' education. In reply, I first note that CSP schools are less likely to experience closure than other charter schools, but I would also note here that school closures also show why charter schools are so valuable. Unlike traditional public schools, where students in failing schools can go for 13 consecutive years without any other option, charter schools are subject to greater accountability. That is the power of choice. Mr. President, we shouldn't subject new charter schools to onerous requirements. We should not set up rules purely to protect the interests of teachers unions--the very same teachers unions that also pushed to close schools, that resisted reopening those schools and repeatedly placed their interests above those of parents and students. The President's rule would only lead to fewer educational opportunities for America's schoolchildren. While accountability for any government-funded enterprise is undoubtedly important, these rules go far beyond mere accountability. In fact, they are not about accountability; they are about something else, something far less credible, far less defensible than accountability. This is about squelching competition and protecting teachers unions from competition, and that is wrong. I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided rule, this misguided effort, and to protect parent choice, ensuring that all children have access to quality education regardless of their ZIP Code.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3843. This bipartisan package of commonsense antitrust reforms would bring a whole lot of much-needed improvements to the administration of our Federal antitrust laws. First, it would update our merger filing fees to reduce the financial burden on the vast majority of filers. Second, it would implement the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act to allow State attorneys general to benefit from the same protection as Federal antitrust enforcers so that their enforcement actions cannot just be transferred out of their State to more defendant-friendly jurisdictions. And, third, this legislation would require companies that submit premerger filings with the FTC and Department of Justice to notify the Agencies of any subsidies or support that they receive from foreign countries of concern such as China, Russia, and Iran. This will allow our antitrust enforcers to ensure that American markets are not being manipulated by hostile States. Finally, in addition to simply being good policy, these reforms are the product of bipartisan cooperation, exemplifying the model for future bipartisan cooperation on antitrust legislation. I, therefore, stand in strong support of this legislation and in support of this request. I would like to yield my time to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3843, which was received from the House and is at the desk; further, 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 with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that an objection has been lodged. I think I disagree with every single assertion in there. It is not what this bill does, not in the slightest. This bill does not take the position that big is bad. I am well familiar with the ``big is bad'' theory. That is not what this is. The merger fees are being reduced for, like, 85 percent of all filers. This simply allows them to do what they need to do and nothing more. It is unfortunate. I am thankful to my cosponsor, Senator Klobuchar, who is the lead sponsor of this bill, for the bipartisan effort in which she has managed this.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Cotton, and Senator Paul be permitted to complete their remarks prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 6482, and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, today, as popular winds blow against the man and woman of faith, we should look to the Constitution and remember that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . '' We do a disservice to all Americans if we elevate the rights of one group at the expense of another. On the one hand, there is no existing threat to same-sex marriage. It is and will remain legal nationwide regardless of the outcome of this legislation before us, the Respect for Marriage Act. On the other hand, we have current, real, sustained ongoing assaults on religious freedom. How we proceed today will do nothing to the status quo of same-sex marriage in this country. It is legal and will remain legal regardless of the outcome of this legislation. It will, however, if enacted, have profound consequences for people of faith. In the wake of the Dobbs decision, proponents of this legislation have conjured up a series of hypothetical scenarios, resulting in an imagined threat to the ability of same-sex couples to marry and enjoy the privileges of marriage. The rhetorical slippery slope goes something like this: First, they claim that some unknown, unnamed State is on the verge of passing an unknown, yet-to-be-proposed or imagined law prohibiting same-sex marriage. Next, they imagine that Federal district courts will uphold this hypothetical State law despite the crystal-clear direction within the Dobbs and Obergefell opinions from the Supreme Court. Should that adventure of unlikely hypotheticals transpire, they envision a case making its way all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States. All of this despite the lack of political will anywhere in the United States to prohibit same-sex marriage. Should that happen, proponents of this bill contend that there is a nonzero chance that one Justice could decide to analyze the right to marry not through the prism of substantive due process, as it has been since Obergefell was decided in 2015, but rather through the lens of the 14th Amendment's privileges or immunities clause. Proponents of the bill cite a single line within Justice Thomas's concurring opinion and suggest that one Justice could effectively destroy legal recognition of same-sex marriage not just prospectively but undoing currently legal same-sex marriage. Now, this is a complete fantasy. I am not aware of a single State in the United States threatening to pass any law infringing the ability of any same-sex couples to marry or enjoy privileges associated with marriage; nor am I aware of a single State threatening to invalidate, within their borders, marriages entered into in other States; nor is it at all clear that Justice Thomas himself was suggesting that Obergefell be overturned. He was suggesting that it be analyzed, like all substantive due process juris prudence, to figure out whether there might be another provision of the Constitution under which it might be more appropriate. They are attributing to him statements he didn't make. They are attributing to him analysis he didn't even undertake in that one statement regarding the doctrine of stare decisis, and then they are attributing to States intentions they do not have and have not expressed. My colleagues have yet to offer even a single example of a same-sex marriage threatened by any current or pending State legislation--not one, not a single one--and they intentionally misinterpret Justice Thomas's concurring opinion in Dobbs and claim that the sky is falling. But it is just not happening. Unfortunately, we are aware of case after case where individuals, charities, small businesses, religious schools, and religious institutions are being hauled into courts to defend themselves for living out their faith. These people are not committing hate crimes against their neighbors. No, they are not abusing peers for their personal choices either. No, they are being hauled into courts across this country for serving the poor, the needy, and the refugee in compliance with their sincerely held religious beliefs. In Texas, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is currently being sued for operating in accordance with Catholic beliefs regarding marriage while providing foster homes for unaccompanied minor children. Now, proponents of this bill claim that these charities will be free to continue to operate. However, in that case, the question is whether, because the Conference of Catholic Bishops receives Federal funding to help with its work, it might be operating under color of law. If accepting grants and licenses from the government makes you an actor under color of law, then many of our religious charities and schools will be threatened by this legislation, which relies on that unnarrowed, undefined phrase. Either the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops can cease operating according to its religious tenets or abandon its God-given mission to care for the refugee. In at least three other cases, religious childcare service agencies deemed to be acting under color of law are being shut out of foster care and adoption. These religious ministries can either abandon and cease to act according to their convictions, their religious convictions about marriage, or they can abandon the orphan. This Nation and our orphans rely on these charities. We cannot and must not force that decision on them. That isn't who we are. From the very moment of our founding, we have been a nation that has welcomed people of all beliefs and of no belief at all. In recent years, the Obama administration, through the U.S. Department of Education, compiled a so-called shame list outlining more than 200 faith-based colleges and universities seeking religious exemptions from title IX guidance on transgender and sex discrimination. It is highly likely that these organizations could also risk losing their 501(c)(3) status. Considering that we are in the process of hiring 87,000 new agents within the Internal Revenue Service, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that some of these new IRS agents will be deployed specifically to review the tax- exempt status of some of these traditionally exempt religious schools. These colleges and universities can either cease operating according to their religious convictions or run the risk of losing their ability to provide quality education at reduced prices. We may well find that they will not be able to do both, and that would be a tragedy. Dr. Andrew Fox created a chaplaincy program at the Austin Fire Department, where he served as the lead chaplain in a volunteer capacity for 8 years, earning the trust and respect of local firefighters. In a personal blog--nothing connected to his work, just a personal blog--Dr. Fox shared his religious views, his religious views specifically regarding marriage. City officials demanded he recant his statements and apologize for the harm that his blog post allegedly caused. He explained that he intended only to foster discussion and not cause offense, and he apologized if anyone was offended. His apology apparently wasn't enough for city officials who demanded total compliance with their preferred views on marriage, views that didn't embrace his own religious beliefs. They forced Dr. Fox to hand in his uniform. He could keep his job or his beliefs but not both. We should not be surprised by the current state of affairs. After all, it was abundantly clear during the Obergefell oral argument before the Supreme Court that this threat to religious nonprofits would be forthcoming. The prescient exchange between Justice Alito and then- Solicitor General Donald Verrilli forecasted the present hostility and the corresponding threats to religious organizations. Justice Alito asked whether, should States be required to recognize same-sex marriages, religious universities could lose their tax-exempt status. His response, the response from Solicitor General Verrilli, was chilling. He said: [I]t's certainly going to be an issue. I don't deny that. I don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is going to be an issue. It is an issue today, and under this legislation it will only get worse tomorrow unless we take affirmative steps to prevent that from happening. And we have the opportunity to do so here, and we shouldn't miss it. Unlike the hypothetical but entirely nonexistent marriages being threatened or discriminated against, these religious organizations are currently, right now, in court fighting for their God-given and constitutionally protected rights to live and operate according to their beliefs and conscience. They are being targeted and harassed by those who would force them to abandon their convictions and embrace the convictions preferred by the government. Sadly, the hostages at risk in this standoff are those who have benefited from the charitable work of these institutions: the poor, the hungry, the refugee, the student, and the orphan. Instead of resolving the concern posed by Justice Alito, this legislation will put the weighty thumb of government on the scale against religious organizations and individuals. Now, they say: Don't worry; you can still believe as you wish. But if, in living out your faith, you offend the views sanctioned by the government, you will suffer the consequences. What do we get for this heavy sacrifice of religious freedom? Are we alleviating the suffering of same-sex families about to be destroyed by government interference? No. As I have said, we haven't heard of even one potential threat to same-sex marriage, not one. The only outcome we can expect from this legislation is for religious individuals, businesses, and institutions to spend more time and more money defending their God-given rights in court. In our pluralistic society, we must be willing to compromise and adapt so that we might live peacefully, peaceably with one another. In that spirit of compromise, let us ensure that we are protecting families--both traditional and same-sex families--and that we are protecting the right to believe as we wish and live out those beliefs without government interference. I believe we can do both. In fact, I know we can do both. Now, the Collins-Baldwin amendment takes a step in the right direction, and I am grateful for that. Rabbis, imams, and pastors should never be forced to perform a marriage contrary to their beliefs. But religious liberty is so much more than marriage. It entails so much more than what might go on within the four walls of a mosque, a synagogue, or a church. It certainly entails and must include the ability of people to practice their faith not only at church but at home and in the public square. In the hope that we can come to a place where we respect each other, I have offered an amendment to this legislation that would explicitly minimize the threats to these religious organizations and individuals. I am at the table. I am willing to compromise. In the spirit of compromise, I have publicly stated--and I reiterate here again today-- that I will support the legislation if my amendment is adopted. My amendment simply prohibits the Federal Government from discriminating against schools, businesses, and organizations based on their religious beliefs about same-sex marriage. That is all it does. It is very simple, and I am grateful that we are going to have the chance to vote on it later today. I am also grateful for the work of my friend and colleague Senator Dan Sullivan from Alaska, who, working together with several of my other Republican colleagues, helped secure and schedule this vote. I am grateful to him for that effort. My amendment prevents the Internal Revenue Service, among other things, from revoking the tax-exempt status of these charities and organizations simply because they act according to their beliefs about the divine purpose of marriage. It prevents the Department of Education from targeting schools with honor codes based on the fact that they have got provisions in their honor codes based on religious beliefs. It protects individuals from being denied business licenses or grants or other statuses based on their views about marriage. It protects Americans who wish to act according to their religious beliefs from being forced to abandon their God-given mandates to love, serve, and care for the poor, the orphan, and the refugee. If we allow the government to threaten their ability to do so, then the religious liberty of every American is in peril. That is why I would ask those who have doubts about this to reconsider their doubts about my amendment. If they object to my amendment and are inclined to vote against it based on the fact that they regard it as unnecessary, then why not pass it. This is a legitimate concern--some may argue this--I have been told by many of the bill's sponsors that my amendment is unnecessary because, according to them, the Collins substitute amendment contains protections that already accommodate this concern. Now, the Collins substitute amendment does, in fact, contain some protections. I am grateful that those were included, and that is a meaningful step in the right direction. I must point out, however, that it doesn't do what my amendment does and therefore doesn't do what many of its proponents are claiming. Nowhere in that legislation is a statement prohibiting the Federal Government from taking adverse action against an individual or an entity based on a sincere religious belief about same-sex marriage, whether that religious belief is one that embraces or does not embrace same-sex marriage. It does not do that. It instead says that nothing in this act shall be construed to alter or deny any status or benefit of any group. Those are two very different things. That language does not do what my amendment does. You see, the threat is not and never was based on what the act itself would do. The act doesn't purport to itself deny or alter any status or benefit or right. So by taking that away, they are paying lipservice to the need for my amendment, but they are not actually addressing it. The threat has been present at least since Obergefell itself was decided for the reasons that prompted Justice Alito to ask then- Solicitor General Verrilli a question about it and the same reasons that prompted Solicitor General Verrilli to acknowledge that it was going to be an issue. Those same reasons exist today. They don't go away because of this legislation. If anything, they are enhanced. The risk is enhanced as a result of this legislation. That is why this is the perfect opportunity, it is the right opportunity, it may very well be the only opportunity to make sure that, as we are undertaking a legislative effort to codify rights for one group of Americans, we don't do so in a particularly un- American way; that is, enhance the rights of some at the expense of others. That is not how we roll. That is not how we do things in this country. We can protect both of these interests at the same time, just as we can walk and chew gum. So for those who would say the Lee amendment isn't necessary because the Collins amendment already takes care of it, that is just not true. And even if it were true, why not accept the Lee amendment anyway? Which begs the question: Why wouldn't anyone want to deny the Federal Government the authority to retaliate against individuals, nonprofits, and other entities based on their sincerely held religious beliefs? Think about that for a minute. Why wouldn't they want to deny that very power from a government that may wield it in a way that is categorically abusive? For my Republican friends who are sympathetic to the need for my amendment and are going to support it, I would ask that if they support it and if the amendment fails, that you not support the underlying bill, because if you support my amendment, hopefully, presumably, that means it is because you agree that it does something--that it does something necessary. It certainly doesn't counteract, contradict, or undermine the stated purpose of this bill in any way. So if you believe that it is necessary and you are going to vote for it, if it fails, you should oppose passage of this bill unless or until the Lee amendment is adopted. We could get this done. I understand that it is not going to happen as long as there are at least 10 Republicans willing to join with every Democrat in order to support this legislation. But if even 3 of the 12 Republicans considering support for this legislation in the end--if even 3 of them supporting my amendment would decide not to support the bill unless or until the Lee amendment was added, I am confident-- indeed, I am certain--that it could and would ultimately be adopted. As I said, we must be willing to compromise to protect the interests of all. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which would ensure that all Americans would have certain rights and that their religious beliefs and their moral convictions will be explicitly protected and provide some comfort that Congress is not purposely passing laws that restrict the free exercise of religion.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

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

Mr. LEE. My staff and I have been in close contact with the Department of Defense regarding Ms. Harris's nomination. The Department of Defense is aware of my concerns with the nominee and also aware of the very simple request that I have made to the Department in connection with her nomination. For these reasons, I object.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges is the law of the land. A single line from a single concurring opinion does not make the case for legislation that seriously threatens religious liberty. The Respect for Marriage Act is unnecessary. States are not denying recognition of same-sex marriages, and there is no serious risk of anyone losing recognition. There is not a single piece of legislation that I am aware of moving through the Congress or any State legislature to do the same. But the Supreme Court majority explicitly stated in its Dobbs ruling earlier this year that the Dobbs decision had no bearing on the recognition of same-sex marriage. The proponents of this bill falsely claim that same-sex marriage is under attack because Justice Thomas suggested in a concurring opinion in Dobbs that the Supreme Court should take a closer look at all of its substantive due process jurisprudence; not necessarily to strike down those rulings, but often to consider whether they should be premised on a different constitutional hook. The majority opinion is what mattered, and it is the one that the majority of the Supreme Court supports. Now proponents of this bill pretend that the legislation would simply codify the status quo. I take exception to that because I don't think that is true. But even before we get to that issue, I think it is important for us to think about what codifying Obergefell on its own terms could mean and why it is that we ought to look at steps to protect religious freedom in light of Obergefell and in light of anything that purports to codify Obergefell. I remember when the Obergefell case was being argued before the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. Solicitor General Don Verrilli, in representing the U.S. Government--with then the Obama administration in power--was arguing before the Court, and Justice Alito, my former boss, interjected with a question. He asked Solicitor General Verrilli, if the Supreme Court of the United States recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage throughout the United States, whether that, when read with other precedent--read in context with other Federal civil rights protections, along with prior Supreme Court rulings--might not result in the risk of some nonprofits, including some schools and universities, being threatened with the loss of their tax-exempt status. Solicitor General Verrilli responded immediately and unambiguously. He said: Yes, Justice Alito. That is going to be a problem. He reiterated it three times that that would be a problem and that it would be something that would have to be addressed. What he was acknowledging was that there was a real risk dealing with Obergefell itself in that, unless we take steps to protect religious colleges, religious universities, and other religious nonprofits, some of those might be threatened with the loss of their tax-exempt status, based solely on their religious beliefs about marriage--about what a marriage is and what it is not. Many in the immediate wake of Obergefell came right out, and purporting to offer comfort to religious Americans and religious institutions in America, many came forward and said: Oh, this risk isn't going to materialize. As I recall it, President Obama, at the time, said: Look, I am not going to force any church to perform a same-sex marriage contrary to its religious teachings. That isn't how this happens. That is not how this risk materializes. That isn't the risk. It never really was the risk. The risk is, rather, whether religious Americans, whether acting individually or as a group, will be retaliated against--denied some privilege or status or access under Federal law to which they would otherwise have access--based solely on a religious- or a moral conscience-based belief about the definition of marriage. So that risk exists independent of this legislation. It has been enhanced by the Obergefell ruling, and it would be materially enhanced if this legislation were to pass without corresponding, necessary, statutory protections for religious freedom. Indeed, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops warns of this very thing. He warns as follows: This bill's harms would be far-reaching. In any conflict with same-sex civil marriage and the rights that flow from it, it will be said that Congress took pains to codify Obergefell, but not to protect the freedoms of speech and religion that Obergefell harms, making them second-class rights. In other words, this bill only makes things worse. This bill takes the preexisting risks presented by Obergefell itself and enhances them, expands them, especially because, by protecting one set of interests-- those identified in Obergefell, in the decision itself--but doing nothing to address the corresponding enhanced risks we are presenting for religious freedoms, it makes for a very, very significant concern. He continues: The bill will be a new arrow in the quiver of those who wish to deny religious organizations' liberty to freely exercise their religious duties, strip them of their tax exemptions, or exclude them from full participation in the public arena. So this bill--this bill that has been brought before us--will, unless modified as necessary, result in three significant problems. First, the bill will label people of faith with differing views on marriage, influenced by their religious beliefs and moral convictions, as bigots. Second, the bill's new private right of action will subject religious Americans to a torrent of litigation--even more than they face now. Doing so will further erode their constitutional right to freely live according to their religious beliefs. This is, after all, what happens any time we allow for the free exercise of religion to be chilled by such action. Third, the bill will put in jeopardy the work and existence of religiously minded social agencies, educational institutions, and other nonprofits as their tax-exempt status will be threatened. Our country was founded on the principle that government should not interfere with the ability of people of faith or of people of no faith at all to practice their religion and to live by the tenets of their own faith in their daily lives. Of course, this can and should be done without interfering with the right of other people to live their lives. That is what we expect. In fact, every time we as Americans seek to protect freedoms, liberty, whether through the adoption of the First Amendment or the adoption of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, for example, or anywhere else, we seek to do it in a way that doesn't create a zero-sum game by enhancing the rights of some while diminishing the rights of others. That is not who we are. That is not how we roll. That is not how our constitutional framework was ever intended to function. It is antithetical to who we aim to be. This bill elevates the rights of one group and does so at the expense of another, and it does so needlessly as there is a way to accommodate both interests, but that way, unfortunately, isn't pursued by the authors of this bill. Many, including some on the left, want to label people who disagree with them on marriage as bigots and force them, in this instance, through endless litigation and threats, to comply with the beliefs of the left and renounce their genuine, sincere religious beliefs. Proponents of this bill claim that the substitute amendment, which we saw for the first time just a few days ago, somehow fixes all of the concerns raised by those of us who want to protect religious liberty. They are wrong. They couldn't be more wrong. They are sadly, sadly, and severely mistaken. The amendment's narrow protections for people of faith apply to only limited circumstances--for example, to the solemnization and celebration of marriages. That protection and a few others are severely anemic when viewed against the backdrop of the threat to religious freedom presented by this bill. Indeed, these changes brought about by the most recent amendment do nothing to prohibit the already existing, already mounting threat of government discrimination against individuals and organizations that hold traditional views regarding marriage--a risk that is materially enhanced by this legislation and all that will flow from it. For example, Catholic Charities and other religious adoption agencies could be shut out of foster care and adoption ministries due to discriminatory government policies--policies that discriminate against them specifically because of their religious beliefs. The bill will only exacerbate what is already occurring in Illinois, Massachusetts, California, and the District of Columbia, potentially making this a nationwide trend. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' work with the Department of Health and Human Services in providing foster care to unaccompanied alien children and to unaccompanied refugee minors will be even more at risk than it is right now. The legislation itself will put religiously affiliated schools and faith-based organizations and others who hold traditional views of marriage at even more risk of being compelled to hire or retain employees whose conduct contradicts their religious beliefs. Wedding vendors will potentially be subject, because of this legislation, to increased lawsuits, harassment, and the destruction of their livelihoods based on their religious beliefs and their desire to live their lives according to their beliefs. This includes small- and family-owned businesses, including religious businesses like kosher caterers. Nonprofits face the potential revocation of their tax-exempt status based on their religious beliefs. At a time when we have added 87,000 new IRS agents, we shouldn't give them any additional encouragement to abuse that power in a way that threatens the beliefs and institutions that are so important to so many Americans and that form the bedrock of some of our most important institutions. The bill's proponents claim that they want to protect religious liberty and that their most recent amendment does that, but they refuse to adopt my amendment or anything like it that would prohibit the Federal Government from discriminating against people or organizations that have traditional views on marriage based on sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions. In many instances, they claim that the most recent amendment, in fact, does that--or they at least suggest that. The language of the most recent amendment even reads as if it might be going in that direction, but a closer inspection reveals that, alas, it does not. It does no such thing. By suggesting that it doesn't do anything to alter or revoke tax- exempt status or any other status under Federal law--that the bill itself doesn't do that--it ignores the fact that this bill sets in motion, keeps in motion, and accelerates existing threats to religious freedom and to their revocation of tax-exempt status for broad categories of nonprofits based on religious beliefs. It is disingenuous to suggest that this halts government from doing what I am warning of here. This amendment does not do that, which begs the question: Why? Why wouldn't they accept it? Importantly, my proposed amendment places no restrictions on individuals or even on State or local governments. It simply prohibits the Federal Government from discriminating against individuals or organizations that have sincerely held religious beliefs or moral concerns that marriage is and should be a relationship between a man and a woman. That is all. What I don't understand is why my colleagues claim to want to protect religious liberty and uphold the First Amendment and, in fact, claim that their amendment essentially does that while simultaneously opposing my amendment so vigorously. I think we all know the answer to that question. The bill pays lip service to protecting religious liberty, but it does not even begin to address the most serious, egregious, and likely threats to religious liberty presented by this bill. Those with differing views and beliefs can exist in the United States without threatening the constitutionally protected rights of one group--rights upon which our country was founded--to score political points. You see, that is the beauty of America. Our Founding Fathers believed strongly in the principle that all religious beliefs should be protected, not just those favored by those in charge of government. It is yet another reason why, when we approach rights through legislation in the U.S. Senate and as Americans more broadly--when we protect rights--we know that we have a duty, an obligation, and an ability to secure those rights that we are trying to secure in a way that doesn't undermine the rights of others. The fact that one group of Americans might have more political support for a particular right and in protecting that right doesn't make it OK within our system, within our culture, within our traditions to undermine the rights of others. That is exactly what we are facing here. The good news is we can fix it. We can fix it. It is easy to amend this thing in a way that doesn't have to be this way. I have yet to hear any of my Democratic or Republican colleagues who supported the bill say that they want the Federal Government to be able to go out and indiscriminately threaten the revocation of tax-exempt status in order to punish religious beliefs with which they disagree. I have yet to hear a single Republican or a single Democrat in the House or in the Senate or anywhere else in this town say--I have yet to hear any of them say--yes, that is what we want to do. In fact, everyone who has addressed the issue has said: No, that is not what we want to do. Most of those on this bill have said: No, we have already taken care of that with this amendment. If that is really true, let's just adopt my amendment. And if you don't want to do it in that form, if you want to write out another version of the same thing, something that does the same thing, that is fine too. But they shouldn't be able to punish religious belief. That is all I want, a protection saying the Federal Government may not punish any individual or entity based on a religious or moral conviction-based belief about marriage. That is not too much to ask. If you ask any American citizen whether that was reasonable, shoot, if you ask any Member of this body in public whether that is fair and reasonable, I think they would have to say yes because it is. When legislation goes through this body and through this Congress in the proper way, we have a better chance of ironing out these details, of making sure that we are not expanding the zone of protected rights and interests of some at the expense of others. We do that pretty well. Mr. President, you and I serve together on the Judiciary Committee. That is the committee of jurisdiction for legislation like this. This legislation should have gone through the Judiciary Committee, and yet we have not held a single hearing on it. We have not marked up this bill in Judiciary. We haven't independently voted on this bill in the Judiciary Committee. In fact, it hasn't been through any committee process in the Senate that I am aware of. If it had, you know the kind of work we would have run it through, the kind of work we would have put into it, and the kind of carefully crafted language we could have produced as a result of it. I am confident we could have and would have and definitely should have worked this out in committee had we had the opportunity to do so. This legislation bypassed committees. Sometimes that happens. I understand that it happens from time to time. It is usually a very unfortunate thing when it does. But when it does, it does not excuse us from the obligation to try to replicate that process by at least making sure that we are not harming other people outside the immediate zone of intended protected beneficiaries of the legislation in question. That is all I am asking for here, and it isn't too much to ask. States and the Federal Government can, and surely will, continue to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages, and they can do so without trampling on the First Amendment rights of those who believe in traditional marriage. That is what it means to live in a pluralistic society. That is what it means to live in a society where we respect each other's differences, we allow each other to be who we are, live as we choose to live. That can't be done unless we allow each other to believe as we believe and not retaliate against others simply because they believe differently than we do. Americans of good faith can continue to live by their own religion and daily life by living as they do and doing so without posing any threat to those who disagree with them. I am confident of that. But this bill does not strike that balance. It purports to do so, and it fails. It labels people of good faith as bigots and subjects them to endless harassing litigation and discrimination and threats by that same government that was founded to protect their religious liberty. Let's do this the right way, not the wrong way. We need to protect religious freedom. This bill doesn't do that. It places it in grave jeopardy. Let's fix the problem.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, China is not a developing nation. China is the world's second largest economy. China is the world's largest manufacturer, and China is the world's No. 1 creditor. Yet this body, the U.S. Senate, is poised to ratify a treaty that ignores those facts and treats China with kid gloves. Simply put, the Kigali Amendment places America at a competitive disadvantage, using American taxpayer dollars to subsidize Chinese companies. The Kigali Amendment restricts supplies of compounds called hydrofluorocarbons or HFCs, which are refrigerants used in most air- conditioning and refrigeration systems. The rationale is that HFCs leaking out of equipment and into the atmosphere add to climate change. However, even the EPA admits that HFCs contribute only five one- hundreths of 1 degree Celsius to projected increases in global temperature. As a developing nation, designated as such under the Kigali Amendment, China is eligible to receive funding from the $4.5 billion Multilateral Fund, of which the United States is, not surprisingly, the largest contributor. If this treaty is ratified, the United States will be required under the treaty to meet strict deadlines for phasing out HFCs, while China is given an additional 10-year timeline to come into compliance with the same standards. It is doubtful, given its track record, that China has any intention of actually meeting its environmental obligations under this treaty. Treating China as a developing country gives it an unfair advantage in the existing HFC market and allows China to continue production, allowing that country to continue to undercut the HFC market well into the 2040s. As the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, China has a long history of disrespecting and disregarding environmental standards and has continually increased its emissions and investments in coal-fired powerplants since the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Under this treaty, Chinese-based HFC producers will get the largest share of the controlled market in future supplies needed to keep existing cooling systems running. As it has done under past environmental treaties, China will continue to produce supplies that are not allowed under the updated environmental standards. This is part of a conspicuous trend on China's part. China wants to get ahead by playing by a different set of rules than the rest of the world--and certainly a different set of rules than the United States has to live under. We know China ignores the rules and has little respect, if any, for international norms, and yet we continue to allow China to dominate markets with the financial support of American taxpayer dollars. This is a point where it just goes too far. We can't give them that. They haven't earned that. There is nothing about their behavior to suggest that they deserve this treatment. We shouldn't give it to them here. To that end, later today, the Senate will likely vote on an amendment offered by Senator Sullivan and me. Now, it will not fix all of the flaws in the Kigali treaty; it will, however, begin to address the issue of China receiving special treatment at the expense of the American people. It will require the Secretary of State to propose the removal of China's designation as a developing nation to the Vienna Convention. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of our amendment and acknowledge the fact that China is not a developing nation.