Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, when Americans see a ``Made in the U.S.A.'' label on a product, it is a source of great pride, and justifiably so. It represents the American virtues of entrepreneurialism and industriousness. It also alludes to the fact that, as Americans, we have a common sense of destiny and a common appreciation for the inherent dignity and eternal worth of the human soul. It is a symbol of support for American manufacturing jobs, for local communities, and for high-quality products. So it often spurs American consumers as well as foreign consumers to buy a particular product--a product lucky enough to have that label. The Federal Trade Commission currently enforces a difficult standard for all products that want to claim the ``Made in the U.S.A.'' label. It requires that ``all or virtually all'' of a product be made in the United States, and it has issued a lengthy legal guidance document--or a series thereof--establishing rules for who may and may not claim that title. However, one State holds a different standard--one that is nearly impossible for businesses to meet. Under California's law, if more than 5 percent of the components of a particular product are manufactured outside the United States--even if that means just a few bolts or a few screws--that product cannot lawfully be labeled ``Made in the U.S.A.'' Because of the flow of interstate and international commerce, in which most manufacturers sell wholesale to national and international distributors who then disperse products all throughout the country, the other 49 States are forced to comply with this one--the most rigid definition--in order to avoid costly litigation. For many practical purposes, this just means they can't use the label. It makes it impracticable as a business matter and not feasible as a legal matter for them to claim that label. Even though they could legally boast the ``Made in the U.S.A.'' claim in every other State in the country, California makes it more or less impossible for them to do so. In other words, a single State is effectively dictating a country- of-origin label. Think about that for a minute. If California or any other State in the Union, for that matter, would like to create a State-of-origin label, I have no issue with such a State doing that and wouldn't suggest that the Federal Government ought to undo those parameters. But as it currently stands, the California law undermines Congress's rightful authority to regulate interstate commerce and needlessly hurts American manufacturers. This is one of the reasons we are our own country. This is one of the reasons we fly the Stars and Stripes. It is one of the reasons the Constitution came into existence to begin with--to give Congress the power to regulate commerce between the several States with foreign nations and with Indians Tribes. Our previous form of government, under the Articles of Confederation, didn't create a Congress that had that power. As a result, in the early days following the American Revolution, States were engaging in activities amounting to economic Balkanization. We saw economic Balkanization among and between the States. That is why our Founding Fathers gathered in that hot, fateful, and sweltering summer of 1787 in Philadelphia--for this very reason. The Reinforcing American-Made Products Act would solve this very problem. It would simply ensure that the FTC has the exclusive authority to set the national standard for ``Made in the U.S.A.'' labeling. The legislation would provide clarity and consistency, helping American companies to avoid unnecessary hardships and frivolous lawsuits that would otherwise deter them from using this coveted and justifiably enviable label of ``Made in the U.S.A.'' Now more than ever, in the midst of the economic turmoil associated with the global pandemic, we ought to be doing all we can to support American jobs and to strengthen our local communities. This legislation would help us accomplish just that. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 4065 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, we have the opportunity right here to pass this right now. This bill fixes this problem. As to the suggestion that we can't do any of this without increasing the total number of green cards--this is a poison pill. My friend and colleague knows that it is a poison pill. In fact, we had that very discussion. I don't ordinarily--in fact, I have a uniform policy against publicly talking about private conversations we have as colleagues. We have now brought it to the floor. We talked about this. This was the basis upon which we reached a deal in his office in December. The point there was to understand that we can't pass something--certainly by unanimous consent--that increases the total number of employment-based green cards. It is not going to happen. So we are dealing here with that finite universe. That is the basis of the deal we reached in December. As to the suggestion that we can't do anything without increasing the total number of green cards, the Senator knows that is not on the table. That is not fair. What we want to do is make this process fair, even if we only have a limited number of green cards to work with, which is the case. Whether you like that political reality or not, it is the political reality. It is the factual understanding that the Senator and I discussed and understood in December when we made that deal. The Lee alternative is the encapsulation of that. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1044 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the Lee amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I am always happy to discuss any counterproposal. If the Senator would make one, I would love to see it. It is not fair to say I don't care about those kids because I am unwilling to create additional green cards. If the Senator wants to protect these children, pass this bill. Pass it today. Pass it at this very moment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE. Rhetorically or otherwise, the Senator is welcome to answer.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, the protection for the children is now found in the proposal, in the amendment at the desk--the one that was just objected to by my friend and colleague, the Senator from Illinois. I would ask my colleague rhetorically or directly, as he may choose: If, in fact, he is unwilling and remains unwilling to negotiate on any bill addressing this problem without increasing the total number of employment-based green cards, why in the world did he waste months of my time? Why did he lead me to believe, while in his office, that he was open to such an agreement that was, in fact, the premise upon which we proceeded? We spent months on that, and I worked in good faith. As I mentioned yesterday, it was against my better judgment that I agreed to announce with the Senator on the Senate floor that we had reached an agreement because I knew that we had to work out a few kinks, but I proceeded based solely on the feasibility and our ability to implement that bill. That was the only change that we made. Now, if the Senator wants to make some adjustment to that, bring it forward. I would love to consider it. Yet what he is now telling me is that the premise upon which we proceeded on those negotiations and then spent weeks and months working on was false in that the whole premise that we could reach some sort of compromise--an actual compromise--that wouldn't increase the number of total green cards available was illusory. I find that disappointing.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I am a little flabbergasted at this moment, when I find myself in a rare circumstance of disagreeing with literally every word uttered by my colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois. He is my friend. He and I have worked together on a number of issues--criminal justice reform, protecting the civil liberties of Americans when it comes to domestic surveillance, all kinds of things on the Judiciary Committee. I disagree with nearly every single word, every syllable he just uttered. I find myself wondering whether we experienced alternate universes in recent months. I have worked nearly the entire time I have been in the U.S. Senate on this issue--for years, nearly 9\1/2\ years, on discrete pieces of legislation, trying to fix immigration. Immigration is a big issue. It is a contentious issue. It is an issue as to which, to put it mildly, there is not always bipartisan consensus. It is one of the areas that I have concluded remains open and possible for bipartisan agreement, is on taking discrete, individual problem areas within our immigration code and updating them and modernizing them. So what we are talking here today about is a bill that I have long championed, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. My sole purpose for championing that legislation--frankly, at great personal expense to myself, at great political expense--was to bring some equity to a system that unduly burdens some immigrants based on their country of origin and based, specifically, on the arbitrary factor of the population of the nation of origin of the immigrant in question. There has been a lot of misinformation at both ends of the political spectrum, at every point in between, about this legislation. It has been attacked from the right, from the left, from everywhere else. A lot of people claim falsely that it would change the total number of green cards available. It wouldn't, as Senator Durbin just acknowledged. That is one of the few things that he said just now with which I think I can agree. But over the years, we have had a number of Senators objecting to this for different reasons. Every time we resolve one objection-- sometimes we will resolve two objections, and then one other will pop up. Then we will resolve that one, and three others will pop up. We have been doing this for years and years, and I have worked in good faith with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in order to resolve those concerns. Now, most recently, Senator Durbin objected to it. Just as I have with each objector before him, I worked with Senator Durbin last fall in order to resolve some of his concerns with the legislation. In December, as he states, we came to an agreement. We came to an agreement on a way that we could move forward. We set some objectives, and he accurately characterized many of those objectives. What I told Senator Durbin at the time was that I was reluctant to announce that publicly because we hadn't yet made or received a request or a response to our request for technical assistance and input from the affected agencies--most importantly, from the State Department and from USCIS. At the time, Senator Durbin requested that we go to the floor; that we introduce it. I, reluctantly, and perhaps against my better judgment, agreed to do that, in part based on the fact that Senator Durbin was taking a lot of heat at the time. People were saying that he was opposed to the idea categorically, and I wanted to work with him in good faith to do it. At the time we had that discussion--at the time the Senator and I made that agreement--I made absolutely abundantly clear we still needed to get technical input, and we still needed to get the input of cosponsors of the legislation. But out of consideration for the Senator and a lot of the political heat you were taking at the time, I agreed, with that understanding, to go to the floor and announce that we had reached an agreement in principle. I have honored every single piece of that agreement in principle, and I strongly resent your suggestion to the contrary--every single piece of it. There is not one substantive piece of this as to which I have changed--not one of them, not the 50-50 rule, not the 4,600 set-aside, not the early filing. The changes that we made were in response to the technical assistance request that we made to USCIS and a couple from the State Department. They had almost entirely to do with what was feasible, what was administratively possible to implement the legislation. After all, we don't want to enact legislation that cannot be implemented without compromising the other responsibilities that that agency has. So after seeking this feedback, we understood that the language, as written, was, in some respects, technically not feasible for USCIS to implement as we had written it. But, here again, I told him: We inevitably will have to make some modifications based on the feasibility of this. So I went back to Senator Durbin, and in light of the USCIS comments and the response to our request for technical assistance from USCIS, we made some changes. I went back to Senator Durbin. My recollection is that it was in February. You say March. I believe it was February. But regardless, I came back to you, and I told you: We are honoring the agreement. We are going to have to delay the implementation of some of it so as to make it technically feasible. Some of these provisions were modified somewhat as to the timing of their implementation, but we honored the spirit and the letter of our agreement. And yet, when we presented these changes to Senator Durbin, he flatout rejected them, almost without any discussion at all and almost without any discussion about how these materially departed from the agreement we had reached in December in good faith that we announced the existence of on the Senate floor, against my better judgment, out of the goodness of my heart, given the amount of political pressure Senator Durbin was getting on this. And he refused, at that point, to continue negotiations. This, by the way, was after months and months of trying to get him to negotiate; months and months of trying to get him to the table that we reached, finally, in December. So I find it astounding. If the Senator is, once again, feeling the political expediency to do so, I am happy to continue these discussions with him, but don't come here and suggest falsely, as he just has, that I have materially departed from the agreement we reached because I did not. Now, I hope that he is as willing as I am to allow businesses a window of time to come into compliance with the new 50-50 rule so that we don't unnecessarily burden the H1-B workers who are already here. That is what my changes do, is make it so we don't unduly burden those. I hope the Senator is as willing as I am to extend the transition period before the per-country caps are fully lifted to allow immigrants from around the world the opportunity to ease into the process. I hope he is willing, as I am, to tackle one major immigration problem at a time in the hope of improving the condition of immigrants in our country without insisting on poison pills. If there is one thing we have learned about immigration reform in recent years is that if you try to reform everything at once, you will guarantee the failure of the bill. I hope that is not what you are trying to do here, but that is the effect it has when you try to add in other extraneous points. Never, by the way, was there ever a discussion about increasing the total number of visas in this. That was never the objective. I never hinted at that. You acknowledged that in every one of our discussions. If you are interested in these principles, as I am, we should be able to find a path forward because all of these changes--all the changes we made to our agreement--were simply made out of expediency in order to be able to ensure that the legislation could, in fact, move forward; that it was feasible to implement; that it could resolve the concerns that you expressed to me and could do so in a manner to ensure the best possible outcome. If Senator Durbin can agree on these changes, we can pass this legislation. We can pass it not just today, we can pass it right now, this very moment. I call on him to do so. If the Senator feels he can work with these changes, I am happy to do that as well. As I said in February, my door is open, and I am always willing to talk about these things with the Senator if he is willing to work with me. So I ask that the Senator modify his request to withdraw the amendment at the desk and include my new amendment, which is at the desk, the amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, 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, reserving the right to object, it should have been brought forward. We would have loved to have considered it. I haven't seen it yet. My staff saw it for the first time earlier today. I would love to have a look at it. This is something that could have been brought up at any moment in the last six or seven months, or the last year. I would be happy to look at it now, but I can't agree to pass something that I have not seen. So, therefore, I object.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I withdraw my objection.

Mr. LEE. I object.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I could not agree more. We should do this. I could not agree more that we need to eliminate the outdated, outmoded Elvis Presley era immigration provision that discriminates against individuals on the basis of their country of origin, on the basis of the population of the country in which they were born. There are reasons why immigration policy is a contentious one. There were reasons why previous efforts have failed, and it always has to do with the fact that people tend to pile on. They get desperate. It is hard for us to reform the immigration code. When somebody suggests 1 reform, others suggest 10 more, and, before long, it chokes the horse. You can't move forward with it. This one is focused on a very simple concept, that regardless of how many visas we issue, regardless of how many green cards we issue, there are a lot of ways to allocate the number that we have. Let's start with the number we have and figure out whatever reasons ought to influence that decision. Among them should not be the country in which you were born. Imagine two hypothetical would-be employment-based green card recipients who are otherwise eligible. Immigrant A and B are identical in all respects--in their employment qualifications, their education, proficiency in English, and every meaningful characteristic except one. Immigrant A happens to be born in Luxembourg and immigrant B happens to have been born in India. Because India has a large population and Luxembourg has a small population, the immigrant from India is going to be discriminated against. It is senseless and based on a bygone era in which immigration policy didn't make sense by today's standards. We ought to be able to get around that. I agree with Mr. Durbin that we should pass this right now. There is no reason not to. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, look, the hold harmless issue was taken care of with the 3- to 9-year transition. That is why we made the 3- to 9-year transition, was to take care of the hold harmless provision. Now, if the Senator wants to negotiate the terms of that, we can talk about that right now. We can resolve that right now. But make no mistake, the Senator is fundamentally changing and altering the terms of what we agreed to, and he is accusing me of, fundamentally, materially, changing the terms of the agreement, when all I have done is what we agreed to in December. What the Senator is suggesting here is a deviation from what is possible. I can't agree to what is not possible, to what contravenes what USCIS has said it is capable of implementing. On that basis, I object.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Failed by an education system and addled by a social media culture that taught them to be victims instead of citizens. A privileged, self-absorbed crime syndicate with participation-trophy graduate degrees, trying to find meaning in empty lives by destroying things that other Americans have spent honest, productive lives building. Today we learned--today we learned--that there are those who are comfortable with this. There are those who are at least not inclined to vote for this resolution, which simply condemns mob violence. Now we know. Now we know. I want all my colleagues to know that when we return from recess, we are coming back to the Senate floor and we are not just going to be debating nonbinding resolutions. It is long past time to expose the shiftless idiocy of the anti-American, anti-science, anti- establishment, anti-Constitution mob and remove their snouts from the Federal trough. Colleges and universities that punish free speech and discriminate against conservative and religious students; city councils that defund their police departments and refuse to protect public safety; States that force doctors to mutilate confused children without their parents' consent; school districts that embrace the ahistorical nonsense of the 1619 Project; the smug, sneering privilege of all of the above and much more--the whole garbage fire that is the so-called ``woke'' ideology-- depends on Federal money. The mob hates America on America's dime. It is time to cut off their allowance. I think the American people would be very interested to know who stands for them and who stands for subsidizing the mob. I intend to show them. Mr. President, this debate is not ending today; it is only the beginning.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, all I asked in my counter was that we remove the words ``especially the President of the United States.'' Why? Because it is different than the entire approach taken by the resolution. As long as we are calling each other out on casting aspersions on each other's intentions, no one's intention here is to shield anyone from anything, as evidenced by the fact that, as my proposed modification would have provided, it would have said that ``our elected officials should not incite violence or legitimize those who engage in hate-fueled acts.'' Last I checked, the President of the United States was and is an elected official. This would apply to him. My counter in no way insulated--not him, not any elected official, not any of us from this resolution, which simply condemns mob violence.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the resolution was designed to be unifying. It avoided controversial subjects. All it asks of us is basic dignity and respect. As long as we are on the topic of rule XIX, it is unbecoming to accuse a colleague of using language that is supremacy simply by reflecting on language in the Declaration of Independence, simply by reflecting on language that acknowledges the incivility and intolerability of mob violence. But apparently that is too much to ask today. I guess we should be thankful for clarity. And now we know. We don't have to ask. They told us how they feel about this resolution. You can't really oppose this, it seems to me, without being on the side of the mobs, of mob violence, of mob mentality, of cruelty and intolerance and terror. Now we understand what this resolution is about. I don't think one can oppose this without being comfortable with those things. These mobs are not progressive. These mobs are not enlightened. These mobs are not edgy. They are not hip. They are frauds. They are dim-witted, phony, drama addicts----

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, what is happening here? This is the U.S. Senate. Just so everyone is clear about the bat guano-inspired insanity we just witnessed, I just proposed a nonbinding resolution condemning mob violence, and Senate Democrats objected. I don't know whether to be outraged or embarrassed for them. This isn't even a bill; it is just a statement that says mob violence is bad. Democrats can't say mob violence is bad without simultaneously taking a jab at the President of the United States? By the way, what about the mayor of Seattle? What about the city council of Minnesota? What about the countless other people who have perpetuated or enabled or facilitated or coddled mob violence across the country? It is one of the reasons why we are not going to engage in this task of making it a political tit-for-tat. It is not that. People are being shot. Businesses are being looted. Innocent Americans are being attacked and threatened. Lives are being ruined. Communities are burning--literally burning. So whose side are you on? This resolution was designed to be unifying. It avoided controversial subjects.

Mr. LEE. Reserving the right to object, as I look at the language proposed by my colleague from New Jersey, I would accept the rest of it except for the words ``especially the President of the United States.'' The rest of it is unobjectionable. The point here is that without pointing to any one specific individual, we should all be able to acknowledge, as a sense of the Senate, that we do hold these truths as self-evident; that our country was founded on these very strong ideals. Even if, as the resolution itself acknowledges, we have failed at times to live up to them, we have still done it. So I would accept the modification but only with the removal of the words ``especially the President of the United States.''

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, before we break for the Fourth of July recess, I think it is important for the Senate to go on record condemning the rising tide of mob violence that we see across the country and the increasingly prevalent mob mentality that is fueling it. The violence struck home for me this week when one of my constituents was shot after an armed mob surrounded his vehicle in Provo, UT. This resolution is not controversial. Even in these divisive times, it is something, I think, we can all agree on, and I want to read through some highlights right now so you get a feel for it. The United States of America was founded in 1776 on universal principles of freedom, justice, and human equality. Throughout our nation's history, Americans have struggled to realize those ideals . . . but nonetheless [have made] greater progress toward them than any [other] nation on earth. [The United States is a diverse nation] committed to cultivating respect, friendship, and justice across all such differences, and protecting the God-given equal rights of all Americans under the law. America's law enforcement officers do an extremely difficult job extremely well, and despite the inexcusable misconduct of some, the overwhelming majority of such officers are honest, courageous, patriotic, and rightfully honored public servants. In recent weeks, people across the United States have organized legitimate, peaceful, constitutionally protected demonstrations against instances of police brutality and racial inequality. [Some of these Americans have organized these peaceful protests, asking for investigations into serious problems meriting investigation and reform.] Some Americans, unsatisfied with peaceful and positive demonstrations, have instigated and indulged in mob violence and criminal property destruction, not in service of any . . . coherent cause, but simply as an arrogant, bullying tantrum of self-righteous illiberalism and rage. These mobs have demonstrated not only contempt for public safety (as evidenced, among other crimes, by an unprovoked physical assault on a Wisconsin State Senator and the [more recent] shooting of a motorist in Provo, Utah) and common decency (as evidenced by their . . . obscene berating of law enforcement officers standing their posts to protect their communities), but also their manifest ignorance and historical illiteracy (as evidenced by their destruction of public memorials to historical heroes like Ulysses S. Grant, St. Junipero Serra, Miguel Cervantes, George Washington, Hans Christian Heg, and a reported plan to target a statue of Abraham Lincoln financed in 1876 entirely by private donations from freed African-American slaves). It is the sense of the Senate that the rising tide of vandalism, mob violence, and the mob mentality that feeds it--including its cruel and intolerant ``cancel culture''-- should be condemned by all Americans; [that] peaceful demonstrations and mob violence are different in kind; [that] physical assault and property destruction are not forms of political speech but violent crimes whose perpetrators should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law; and [that] the innocent law enforcement officers, public officials, and private citizens who suffer the mob's violence and endure its scorn while protecting our communities from them deserve [every American's thanks and appreciation]. As I say, it is very straightforward. As we saw in Seattle this week, these mobs are not going to stop until they are stopped. A nonbinding resolution is the tiniest first step of a response--the merest exercise of the Senate's atrophied institutional muscles. We need to do much, much more, and I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to develop the legislation to do it. Yet, in this divided political moment, heading into the 244th birthday of the greatest, freest, most tolerant, and prosperous nation the world has ever known, I think showing that Senate Republicans and showing that Senate Democrats can work together and speak with one voice against woke mob violence and in defense of equal justice and civic peace would be a welcomed step. Therefore, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 645, submitted earlier today. 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 with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the purpose of the Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors and to maintain orderly and efficient markets. This bill would change that deal. It would change the entire premise of the SEC. It would use the SEC to pressure people to disclose personal information that has no connection to the financial health of the company, information that many people understandably, justifiably, and with really good reason prefer to keep private. Why? Because it is not the public's business; it is theirs. The bill requires businesses to probe the race, gender, ethnicity, and veteran status of not only those already on the senior payroll of their companies but also anyone who is even considered for those positions. Secondly, the free market already provides a way to achieve these goals. If investors prefer to invest in companies that have certain kinds of people on their boards and certain kinds of people in executive positions, then companies have a financial incentive to disclose that information. No one is stopping them from doing that. Many companies do, in fact, disclose that information. Many companies are already providing this information because their customers and their investors are demanding it. Government is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. It is not a deity. It is just force. It is just organized, collective official force. That is all it is. We should not use the heavy hand of government for things that the American people already have the opportunity to do on their own and in many, if not most, cases already are doing on their own. Finally, the bill co-ops Federal employees at the SEC to create a diversity advisory group of government bureaucrats and academics who would advise Congress on policies to increase ethnic and gender diversity on corporate boards. We already have a diversity advisory group. We already have it. It is the millions of Americans whom we represent. To think that bureaucrats at the SEC could inform Congress of the importance of inclusion and diversity better than the American people is wasteful, and to think that it is appropriate to vest in the SEC an entity designed to protect investors from fraudulent activities of those running these enterprises is just the wrong conception, not only of the SEC but of government in general. For these reasons, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have deep affection and adoration for my friend and colleague, the Senator from New Jersey. I do respectfully but strongly disagree with his position on this. He made the point several times that if he were acting as an investor, he would very much like to know the composition of a corporate board or an executive team within a corporation, which is great. A lot of people feel the same way. That isn't the question. No one is stopping a corporation from disclosing that information. In fact, a whole lot of corporations do. Some may not want to do that. Some might want to disclose some of this information but not all of it. Some might not want to be in a position of asking probing questions regarding the gender and ethnicity and race of their employees, understanding that it will then be disclosed to the public under the crushing force of Federal law. There are legitimate reasons why a company might not want to do that, some of which have to do with that company's own ability to treat its employees and its board members and its executive team with dignity and respect. In some circumstances, not everything is the government's business. Transparency, yes. It is absolutely something that I believe in. Transparency usually refers to what we need when it comes to government action. Transparency is what we demand when we require open public hearings when government does business. Transparency is what we require when we allow government documents to be made public and allow the public to see what the regulatory process is doing. Transparency doesn't mean that everything that everyone does in America that has a tie to economic activity is the public's business. The fact that it is publicly traded doesn't mean it is owned by the government. So the statement made by my colleague to the effect that when information is hidden from you, then the free market doesn't work very well--I don't understand what that means. If what he is suggesting is that it is hidden in violation of law, that is not the case. If what he is suggesting is that the free market can't punish those who refuse to disclose information about the boards and reward those who do, that is exactly what the free market does. The free market has every opportunity to work here. It is not as though nobody is providing this information, but it is not their business. As to the suggestion that because the Chamber of Commerce supports this, therefore it is pro-business, and because it is pro-business, we should all support it, I respectfully but strongly disagree. I know that as a Republican, I am supposed to automatically agree with what the Chamber of Commerce says. Sometimes I do, but, you know, a whole lot of the time, I don't. This goes back a long time. It goes back to the time when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposed a massive tax reform bill that was proposed by President Calvin Coolidge. I found some relief in the fantastic, eponymous book ``Coolidge'' about President Coolidge and his proposal of that reform-- a reform that, by the way, helped build America's middle class and resulted in explosive economic growth. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposed that reform. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce gets a lot of things wrong, and it is wrong here. This isn't the government's business. These businesses are not government. They can do what they want, and it is not our place to say otherwise

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, as my distinguished friend and colleague from New Jersey says, the fact that they make all types of demands on publicly traded companies is not a substitute for an actual logical or legal argument as to why they are entitled to information that is not theirs--information these companies may or may not choose to collect because that is their business. It is not the government's business, and it sure as heck isn't the government. So the fact that they make all types of demands on publicly traded companies doesn't prove the point here. We have to remember something, and, yes, we have to remember it right now in this moment--not in spite of this moment but because of it. Government is for. We have seen the catastrophic consequences of people who lose sight of what government is for and what its limitations are. The fact is that we don't have access to angels, as James Madison described it in Federalist 51. If men were angels, we wouldn't have a need for government. If we had access to angels to run our government, we wouldn't need all these rules. But because we are not angels, we don't have access to them to run our government. We have to have rules, and there have to be limitations on what is and isn't the role of government. Now, look, there are all kinds of businesses that keep track of this information on the corporate board members and those considered for those positions and their executives and those considered for those positions. It is not our role to tell them the information they have to extract from each and every person they interview for those positions and demand that it be publicly disclosed. Why? Well, because, among other things, it is none of their darn business, and in many cases, it is none of ours. That is the business of the individual. We shouldn't be punishing companies, businesses, and hard-working Americans. Yes, some of them are rich, and a whole lot of them are not rich. We shouldn't be punishing them just because they don't happen to share our view of how they ought to be operating. I find it curious that he says over and over again that this is how they will be more successful and this is how they will make more money. It is not our place to decide. They are free to operate their business in a foolish way and in a way that might cost them money. It doesn't make it our place to decide this

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is with sadness, concern, and deep disappointment that I come to the floor to acknowledge something very unfortunate that happened just last night in my own hometown of Provo, UT. A group of people were gathered in downtown Provo to protest, to express concern over matters important to them. At one moment, a car approached University Avenue, preparing to turn right on to Center Street. As that car approached, the car was surrounded by people who were engaged in acts of protests. The car tried to pull through the intersection very slowly, being cautious, and not to move into anyone. The protesters continued to gather around the car. In the middle of all of this, the driver of that car was shot--was shot--by one of the protesters who was armed, who, according to the video that I saw, looked right into the vehicle and shot into the passenger side window with a gun. According to eyewitness accounts, after the driver then pulled away from the intersection, trying to get away, the person with the gun fired yet again as the driver was driving away. Moments later, the driver arrived at Utah Valley Regional Medical Center, seeking medical attention. My thoughts and prayers are with that victim and the victim's family I am saddened that we have to be having this conversation at all, but it is something that has come to so many communities around America. These are protests, in some cases, turning into riots that have visited communities--urban and rural and suburban alike. In many instances, people have come to those protests in order to vocalize concerns that they have with their government--concerns, perhaps, about law enforcement policy or personnel. In some cases, some protests have been carried out without violence and without incident. A few weeks ago, I came to the floor of the U.S. Senate to talk about one such gathering in Ogden, UT, where people gathered to express their objections to what happened to George Floyd in Minneapolis about a month ago. They did so in the immediate wake of the killing of a police officer in Ogden. They dual-tracked their expressions of emotion and of concern, expressing support and appreciation to the fallen officer who had given his life enforcing the law and trying to protect his fellow Utahns, his fellow American, his fellow residents of Ogden, while at the same time protesting against what happened to George Floyd in Minneapolis. They protested in a way that reflected well on this country, on the city of Ogden, and on the State of Utah. They left with not a scrap of trash left in the streets. Perhaps far more importantly, they left the scene without having harmed anyone or anything, without destroying property. Yes, the American people have the right peaceably to assemble and to express their views without fear of retribution from their government. But, no, that does not encompass the right to harm other people, and, no, that does not encompass the right to engage in acts of lawlessness, whether for the purpose of destroying property or life simply because one is concerned about something. This violence has to stop. This isn't who we are. It is important also to remember that whenever we voice concern about something in government, we remember that you can't expand government without strengthening government--the same government entity that provides law enforcement officers, the same government entity that collects taxes, that runs any government program. So we do have to keep in mind exactly what it is that we want. There are many instances that I have observed as a lawyer, as a former prosecutor, and as a citizen in which police authority has been abused. I unequivocally condemn all such abuses. That is the very reason we have a Constitution in place to limit the power of government, of individual officials running them--government entities. When you send law enforcement in to address a particular situation, you are not doing that for the purpose of persuasion; you do it for the purpose of force. That is the one tool that government has that is uniquely government's. It has the power of force. It is official, collective force. That is what government is. I hope and I expect that our conversations about this will focus on how force is used by government--where it ought to be entrusted in government, where it shouldn't. I hope, also, we can look to any of the true underlying causes of some of these abuses. I hope and expect that we can address why on Earth was it that the man who killed George Floyd apparently had 17 complaints filed against him without formal disciplinary action ever having been taken against him. Why and how did this happen? What sort of cabal was it that was protecting him from discipline? I hope and expect that we can have those conversations, but I hope and expect that we as a country can come together in condemning violence--lawless violence in all of its forms. Whether it is against persons or property or a combination of the two, we are better than that. Don't dress it up in the flag. It doesn't belong there. Don't dress it up in the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects our right peaceably to vocalize our concerns, peaceably to assemble--not lawlessly and, certainly, not violently. If this can happen in Provo, it can happen anywhere. You don't want it to happen in your community, not in any community. I hope and expect that in the coming days we can come together as a Senate and adopt sense of the Senate legislation unequivocally condemning violence undertaken in a lawless fashion. Regardless of the motivation of those involved in it, it is wrong, and it must never be tolerated--not in this country, not on our watch. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we received this 125-page bill yesterday evening. I have great appreciation and respect for my colleague, the Senator from Washington, and yet I can't look at this 125-page bill we saw for the first time yesterday evening without thinking that hardly enough time has passed since this legislation was introduced to even read the bill, let alone to mark it up in committee or bring it up on the Senate floor and have it passed here. Even though Congress has acted to provide emergency assistance in response to the current global pandemic, this legislation includes significant additional spending for a number of programs that have not been debated in the Senate. This bill would also create at least one new program, and I say ``at least,'' because, again, we are still trying to figure out what is in it. It creates at least one new program, the Community College and Industry Partnership Grants Program. I am sure this would do a number of good things, but, again, this thing is not ready for prime time. This program is, as far as I can tell, largely duplicative of existing programs. This legislation would provide $2 billion for it anyway. A bill of this length and a bill that provides for billions of dollars in new spending should not--I would hope would never--be passed this quickly. The Senate should take the time to thoroughly weigh the changes proposed in this legislation. Therefore, on behalf of Senator Alexander and myself, I object.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, reasonable efforts to protect those working on the frontlines in the middle of a public health crisis should certainly be applied. There are many individuals across the country steadfastly fulfilling their occupational duties to care for and otherwise help those who have the coronavirus. It is important that those individuals take precautions for their safety and for the safety of other people who happen to be around them. However, the bill under consideration, the bill that is the subject of this unanimous consent request, poses several problems. First of all, it does not respect the fact that States, localities, and businesses are far better suited than the Federal Government to determine what safety standards might be needed. Instead, the legislation forces State governments to adjust their current plans to protect workers to meet standards determined by some administrative bureaucracy in Washington. This action is burdensome, and a one-size-fits-all approach to protecting healthcare workers on the frontlines will not work. The reason it will not work is that our frontlines differ across the Nation. States must be permitted the flexibility to enact their own standards based on the needs of each State. Further, the temporary protection standards for the bill are not truly temporary. They are described as such, but they are not, as the bill calls for permanent standards to be made based on the initially temporary standards to be determined by OSHA. Finally, the bill broadly subjects all employees at risk of occupational exposure to the emergency standards to be promulgated by OSHA. This means that potentially every worker in every industry could be subjected to these requirements even though each industry has its own unique challenges that need to be addressed. So this broad-brush approach could limit the ability of certain individuals to work during this time even though they might actually be in a good position to do so safely. It is critically important for our healthcare workers to be protected in a time of crisis, but the most effective way to accomplish that is by continuing to allow States, localities, healthcare facilities, and businesses to set safety standards and to ensure that those who can safely work have the ability to do so. Therefore, on behalf of Senator Alexander and myself, I object.