Thom Tillis

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in the discussion over the relief package we are going to be voting on later this week. We need to go back to last year and recognize what happened in this Chamber on five different occasions. I have been in the Senate now for 6 years, and very seldom do we see both parties come together and recognize we have a problem and we have to relieve the American people. We had a historic pandemic, first of its kind, in 100 years. COVID hit our shores. What did we do? We spent days and weeks, but over the course of those days and weeks, we came together with five bipartisan packages that really address the root problems and the challenges created by COVID. We passed the Paycheck Protection Program, something that I think was extraordinary. The banking community got together even before we had the rules on how the loan should be underwritten and how they would be forgiven, and they decided to mobilize and provide desperately needed capital and liquidity to businesses, and they saved many, many businesses in North Carolina. We passed Operation Warp Speed, a program that for the first time in this Nation's history, or any nation's history, we went from a known virus to two multiple vaccines with high degrees of efficacy that are now being put into the arms of Americans at a rate of almost 2 million a day. We did that because we focused on a problem and we fixed it and we continue to evolve it--five different bipartisan bills. Now the sixth one is before us. It is called a COVID relief package, but we all know that much of what is in this bill has nothing to do with the COVID impacts and nothing to do with the immediate spending in this coming year. Now, I understand elections have consequences. It has been said by President Obama and others, and we have a change of leadership here in the Senate and change of leadership in the White House. But I really hate that we are going to leave a mark. Probably, and hopefully, the last COVID--the last bill that would have some COVID relief in it is going to go down as one of the most probably partisan fights that we are going to have this year on this floor later this week. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided to go it alone. That is exactly what you are going to see in full display come Thursday this week when we go into what we call vote-arama. I feel like we have to be intellectually honest with the American people. We know that we have to provide more relief. We know that people are struggling, businesses are struggling, individuals are struggling, and I get all that, and that is why I wish so much that we were going to have another bill laid down on the floor that was going to get strong bipartisan support. But to call this bill that is coming before us this week a COVID relief package, I think, is being dishonest with the American people. This chart probably best illustrates what the American people need to understand. That is how much is in this bill that is legitimately focused on the crisis that we are trying to continue to manage through very targeted, focused dollars--American taxpayer dollars--that in this case, as some of my colleagues have said, they are not even dollars we have collected yet. We are going to collect them from my two granddaughters and future generations: a $1.9 trillion package with about 9 percent going to something that you could reasonably argue has a nexus with the impact of COVID, whether it is on individuals, whether it is people out of work, or whether it is businesses that are trying to make payroll. That is a fact, 9 percent. Now, I feel like at some point we need to get back to what we did on five different occasions before. We knew businesses were failing. They needed relief. We gave them the Paycheck Protection Program. We knew that people were out of work because of business closures. Maybe you had to take off work because you didn't have daycare because your school was closed. All of those are legitimate reasons to provide additional relief. That is what we should be voting on this week, and in small part we are, but in large part we are not. I think it was someone in the Obama administration who was famously quoted for saying: ``Never waste a crisis.'' And it looks like, to me, that this crisis is being used to advance policy discussions that we should have a debate on the floor, but we are not going to have that. We are going to have a vote with a simple majority, not rising to the gold standard in this institution for 60 votes, and we are going to pass things that have virtually nothing and, in most cases, absolutely nothing to do with COVID. How on Earth can you provide education funding and say that you are doing it for COVID impacts, and much of that money--the majority of the money--is not even going to be spent until beginning in 2022 and then playing out in 2028? How can you say that has anything to do with the immediate crisis of getting these kids back in school, making sure that teachers are safe, and making sure that we can recover from what I think will be irreparable damage for a number of students who have never been allowed to go back into school? When we talk about the economic stimulus payments, there are a lot of people who need help. There are a lot of people who need a check. But the proposal that I have seen, the proposal we are going to vote on this week, is giving money to people who would like it. I can understand why it is very popular. Who wouldn't, in this Chamber, want to think that they are going to get a $3,000 or $4,000 check in the mail--whether you were out of work at all, whether your combined household income is $150,000, and you are still working. You weren't impacted by it. I understand why it is popular. But is it really fair? You know, there is a trailer park in Antioch, TN, on Richards Road. I grew up in it, and I ride there when I go visit my family. I go back and visit with people who live in that trailer park. My guess is almost every single one of them need help, and my guess is many of them who work in the service industry have been out of work for the better part of the last year. We should tell them: You are going to get some help, but that neighborhood that is about a mile down the road from that trailer park I grew up in, where you have got combined household incomes of $150,000, both the husband and wife are working, both of the kids have daycare options, they are going to get it too. Is it really fair for the people who are struggling the most? Is it really fair to say that we are providing education relief, and it is not going to be spent until I would have to run for reelection again in 2028? I think we need to be honest with the American people. If we want to have a debate about all of the red, all of the money that is going to be committed this week that has nothing to do with COVID relief, let's be honest with the American people. What we are doing this week, I think, is dishonest What we are doing this week is bailing out States like my State of North Carolina, a $4 billion surplus this year; bailing out the States of North Carolina, New York, Illinois, California, instead of trying to use that money, which we don't have--but if we need to spend it, let's spend it on those folks who grew up like I did. Let's spend it on the businesses that may shutter their doors. Let's do that. Let's let that be the sixth bipartisan COVID-relief package that we put together, not what we are going to be forced to vote on this week. I hope the American people know we recognize--we Republicans recognize people are hurting, and we want to give them help. We have proven that because we voted in five different instances, on a bipartisan basis, to do that. What the leadership of this Chamber is doing this week is taking us down a course to where we will probably never have a chance to come back together and have that kind of bipartisan result for this crisis or future ones. So I am going to work hard on amendments to potentially tailor and remove some of the red. In the meantime, I think anybody who supports the bill that is coming over from the House should seriously consider whether they are being honest with the American people and their constituents. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Garland Shepheard, who retired as the North Carolina House sergeant-in- arms at the beginning of the year. Mr. Shepheard is a proud North Carolinian who was committed to keeping North Carolina legislators safe. Garland Shepheard is a lifelong resident of Tarboro, NC, where he resides with his wife Betty Jo. Mr. Shepheard was successful car salesman and additionally served as Edgecombe County Republican Party chairman. He also served two terms on the Tarboro Town Council and has contributed a lifetime of service to his community. Before representing North Carolina in the U.S. Senate, I had the pleasure of interacting with Mr. Shepheard serving as North Carolina speaker of the house. Widely known for his brightly colored jackets and distinct Eastern North Carolina accent, Garland was loved by members from both sides of the aisle. As the U.S. Senator from North Carolina, I am grateful for Garland's service to our State and Nation. I hope he enjoys his much-deserved retirement back in Eastern North Carolina, and we will never forget his commitment to keeping North Carolinians safe.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, the American people should have full faith in our election system, which is why I led the passage of voter ID legislation in North Carolina and why I supported President Trump's right to call for recounts and bring challenges to the courts. I share the concerns of many Americans regarding the lack of security of widespread mail-in voting and the partisan actions of activist Democratic lawyers who succeeded in making questionable changes to the voting process while Americans were already casting their ballots. Even if it wasn't enough to change the outcome of the election, irregularities and fraud are never acceptable, and they should be investigated and prosecuted when appropriate. The Framers of our Constitution made it clear that the power to certify elections is reserved to the States, not Congress. Refusing to certify State election results has no viable path to success, and, most importantly, it lends legitimacy to the left's stated policy objective of completely federalizing elections and eliminating the electoral college. Congress should not overstep its constitutional authority by overturning the results of States and the will of American voters, especially absent legitimate requests from States for Congress to intervene. It is a precedent we should not set, and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer should not have the power to set aside electors after the 2024 election and overrule Federal courts and the Constitution as they see fit. I was proud to support President Trump's agenda and campaign with him, and I am deeply disappointed he was not reelected despite his success in creating jobs, cutting taxes, securing a conservative judiciary, reforming the VA, and rebuilding our military. Although I certainly wish the results were different, Congress cannot change them without inflicting irreparable damage to our constitutional Republic. I will not oppose the certification of the electoral college votes, and I will not embolden politicians in the future to appoint our Presidents instead of having the American people duly elect them.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and service of Concord, NC, Police Officer Jason Shuping, who was tragically killed in the line of duty this week. Officer Shuping was only 25 years old and had served the Concord Police Department for 1\1/2\ years with honor and distinction. Officer Shuping and Officer Kaleb Robinson were responding to a 9-1-1 call for a car crash and an attempted carjacking. Officers Shuping and Robinson located the suspect and were prepared to bring him to justice. However, when Officer Shuping, Officer Robinson, and a third ALE officer approached, the suspect immediately began opening fire. Officers Shuping and Robinson were both shot. Additional officers arrived on the scene and took out the suspect. While Officer Robinson is, fortunately, expected to make a recovery, Officer Shuping, tragically, passed away from his injuries. Jason Shuping was an outstanding police officer who courageously ran to danger to protect residents of Concord. He was also a loving son and a husband to his wife Haylee. He was active in his community since his childhood. He attended East Rowan High School in Salisbury, and he was an honor student and track and field athlete at UNC-Pembroke. He was a young man with a bright future ahead of him, described by those who knew him as a ``gentle soul who made an impact.'' His hometown paper, the Salisbury Post, noted: ``Whether it was staying after practice to provide coaching to a youngster or coming back home from college to play the handbell in his church's ensemble, you could always count on Jason Shuping.'' It is no surprise to see the outpouring of love coming from the community of Concord to honor his life and service. There have been a candlelight vigil and a touching law enforcement escort that brought many residents and a long line of American flags proudly displayed. As we gather with our families this Christmas, my thoughts and prayers will be with the family of Officer Shuping, as well as the families of Mount Holly Police Officer Tyler Herndon and Nash County Deputy Sheriff Jared Allison, who also lost their lives this month in the line of duty. Those families are going through an unimaginable period of grief, but they should know that the people of North Carolina are forever grateful for the selfless service of their loved ones, and I will never forget the ultimate sacrifice that they made in answering the call to protect others. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Burr for his leadership and leaning into this for many years before I even joined the Senate. I thank Senator Dole for filing this bill that actually even had Senator McConnell's cosponsorship many, many years ago. I thank the Lumbee people for their patience, but, quite honestly, when you are talking about the ninth largest Tribe east of the Mississippi River--I am sorry--the ninth largest in the Nation and the largest Tribe east of the Mississippi River, a Tribe that has been seeking recognition since 1888--they were recognized as Indian by the State of North Carolina in 1885. In 1956, they were partially recognized. We heard a unanimous vote coming out of the House. They were prepared to provide recognition. In November, we heard President Trump and Vice President Biden both say they support recognition. So we are so close. There is a compelling case. It is a century in the making. And the fact that we couldn't get this through today when it passed unanimously out of the House just a month ago I think is a shame. I appreciate Senator Burr for his patience and his tenacity. We are not going to let this go. Hopefully, it gets done tonight, but we have to recognize that the Lumbee people deserve recognition, they deserve respect. They have been fighting for it for a century, and I am going to fight for it as long as I am in the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, today I want to say a word about the need to revise title 18 so that criminal commercial enterprises that stream pirated content to users are subject to the same felony penalties as criminal commercial enterprises that distribute to users or reproduce pirated content. The provisions of the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act target clearly criminal conduct committed with criminal intent. Lawful internet and streaming services, licensees, other mainstream businesses, and users engaged in ordinary activities do not risk prosecution. Most importantly, businesses engaged in those activities are clearly excluded by the requirements that a defendant be engaged in conduct that is primarily designed, intentionally marketed, or has no commercially significant purpose or use other than for use in illegal streaming. Nor do those engaged in noncommercial activities risk prosecution under this statute. Noncommercial activities are explicitly excluded by the terms of section 2319C(a). It is intended that none of these activities shall be subject to any risk of criminal prosecution under this bill. More generally, it is well established that criminal penalties are the exception rather than the rule in cases of copyright infringement. As the Department of Justice itself has noted, criminal sanctions are appropriate only with respect to certain types of infringement-- generally when infringer knows the infringement is wrong, and when the infringement is particularly serious or the type of case renders civil enforcement by copyright owners especially difficult. As such, criminal prosecution has been and is appropriately reserved for serious forms of large-scale, commercial infringement, not as a means of targeting ordinary business disputes between legitimate companies or those which are otherwise adequately addressed through civil litigation. The new section 2319C, in particular, requires willfulness, which means that the statute does not apply in the absence of an intentional violation of a known legal duty. Consistent with this, a provider of broadband internet access service would not be subject to prosecution under this statute, for example, based merely on the attributes or features of its service, nor could prosecution be predicated on the misuse of its service by its customers or others in furtherance of an infringement scheme, where the service provider does not itself share the requisite criminal intent of the underlying substantive offense and act with specific intent to further it. In this regard, offering high-speed connections that allow its customers to access the internet, failing to block or disable access to particular online locations, or failing to take measures to restrict the use of or deny its customers access to such service would not be sufficient to demonstrate the requisite criminal intent under the bill. This conduct would also not otherwise meet the prerequisites under the aiding and abetting statute, regardless of whether the broadband internet access service provider might be civilly liable in such circumstances under the differing standards for contributory or vicarious liability. A person who willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain offers or provides to the public a digital transmission service violates the statute under section 2319C(a)(3) when that person intentionally promotes or directs the promotion of its use in publicly performing works protected under title 17 without the authority of the copyright owner or the law. The language of section 2319C makes clear that it is the offering of an illicit digital transmission service, as defined by section 2319C(a)(1)-(3), that is an offense, not the marketing activities done by or at the direction of a person offering an illicit digital transmission service, as referred to in section 2319C(a)(3). Thus, an entity that provides only commercial online marketing services and does not itself also provide an illicit digital transmission service would not be subject to prosecution under section 2319C(a). Further, it is not the intent of this legislation to create potential aiding and abetting liability for mainstream third party ad networks or marketers. An online marketing services provider could be liable for aiding and abetting an unrelated entity providing unlawful streaming services only where the online marketing services provider shared the same requisite criminal intent of each element of the underlying substantive offense and acted with specific intent to further it. Thus, an online marketing services provider which places an advertisement for an entity that is violating section 2319C(a) would face aiding and abetting liability only if the online marketing services provider was itself associated with the criminal venture of the illicit digital transmission service to such an extent that it shares the criminal intent of the person offering the service and acted with the requisite specific intent to commit or facilitate the underlying offense. Similarly, a service that streams content uploaded by users would not be subject to prosecution merely because some users might upload infringing content. The service would be subject to criminal liability only if it had the requisite criminal intent and acted with specific intent to further it. The provisions of this statute also do not apply to any person acting in good faith and with an objectively reasonable basis in law to believe that their conduct is lawful. Thus, a bona fide commercial dispute over the scope or existence of a contract or license governing such conduct or a good-faith dispute regarding whether a particular activity is authorized by the Copyright Act would not provide a basis for prosecution. For example, neither a cloud-based DVR service nor an application provided by a multichannel video programming distributor, MVPD, to enable such MVPD's customers to access its video service utilizing a mobile device, which were the subject of prior civil copyright infringement challenges based on good faith disagreements regarding the scope of rights under the Copyright Act, would be actionable under this provision if the provider offering such services met this standard. By contrast, a party that merely asserts an applicable contract, an exception, or a belief that the person's conduct was lawful, in a case where the assertion is not made in good- faith, is merely a pretense, or is otherwise not based on an objectively reasonable interpretation of the law, would not avoid prosecution on that basis. The statute provides for an enhanced penalty in section 2319C(b)(2) for someone who knowingly commits an offense in connection with 1 or more works being prepared for commercial public performance. The ``should have known'' standard in section 2319C(b)(2) applies only after a finder of fact determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed an offense under subsection (a). The ``should have known'' standard should not be conflated with the standards of willfulness, not primarily designed, no commercially significant purpose, and intentionality set forth in section 2319C(a), all of which define the underlying offense and are intended to protect lawful internet and streaming services, content licensees, and noncommercial users. Finally, the statute in section 2319C(d)(3) defines a work being prepared for commercial public performance, based on the definition of ``work being prepared for commercial distribution'' in section 506(a)(3) of the Copyright Act, while updating that definition to account for the challenges of piracy in the modern streaming environment. Section 2319C reflects the fact that infringement threatens unique harm when it occurs prior to or in the earliest windows of commercial availability. The definition in 2319C(d)(3) recognizes that in the modem streaming environment, not all motion pictures are developed for theatrical distribution. The updated definition of a ``work being prepared for commercial public performance'' affords appropriately enhanced penalties for violations of the statute involving pre- and just-released film and television content, whether in a first theatrical window or immediately upon release to the public via a streaming or other platform. The legislation does not make corresponding changes to the definition of ``work made for commercial distribution'' in section 506(a)(3). Whether it is appropriate to harmonize the definitions is a question that is beyond the scope of this particular legislation, which does not otherwise make changes to title 17. Section 2319C(d)(1) defines ``motion picture'' as defined in the Copyright Act, which includes nontheatrical motion pictures, television shows, and broadcasts of live events.

Mr. TILLIS

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

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, 3 days ago, I came to the floor and spoke in honor of the life of Tyler Herndon, a Mount Holly, NC, police officer who lost his life just days before his 26th birthday last week. He was laid to rest this week. Now 5 days after his murder and 3 days after my remarks, I am devastated to report that another officer in North Carolina has lost his life in the line of duty. Wednesday night, the Concord Police Department received a call about a crashed, abandoned car on I-85 just outside of Charlotte. Responding officers were alerted that the suspect had attempted to steal a woman's car while she was still in it. Officers Jason Shuping and Kaleb Robinson tracked and identified the suspect on foot. As they approached the suspect, he pulled out a handgun, and he shot both of these brave officers. Tragically, Officer Shuping died at the scene. Thankfully, Officer Robinson is recovering at the hospital. Officer Shuping was just 25 years old--the same age as the officer we memorialized this week, Tyler Herndon. I am just devastated by this. These brave officers had begun their careers in law enforcement and had nowhere to go but up. They were serving our community, and they were doing it with honor. We talk a lot about the sacrifice given by law enforcement officers who day in and day out are serving our communities and putting themselves in harm's way, and it is dispiriting to think that these fallen officers, at the very beginning of their careers, have already made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of public safety and community safety. Families in North Carolina and in each of our States are about to endure their first Christmas without their loved ones. We owe so much to these families whose parents, spouses, siblings, children, and grandchildren have given everything in the line of duty. On Tuesday, when I spoke on Officer Herndon, I said that in the next Congress, I would be moving forward with the Protect and Serve Act again. This act increases penalties for people who murder or assault police officers. But in light of another police officer's death--the second one in a week in North Carolina, in the suburbs, just around the corner from where I live, 10 or 15 minutes away--I think we have to elevate the discussion now and send a very clear message to those who would harm police officers that if you do, then there are going to be dire consequences to pay for it. We owe it to the police officers to let them know that Congress cares about them. We should send this message. This is a simple bill. It only focuses on those who are so brazen that they would murder a police officer in the line of duty, assault them, ambush them--all the things you have seen; now 48 murders in this year alone. The best thing we can do is to pass this commonsense legislation and send a message to these people who are taking away the men and women serving our communities. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 4605 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 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. TILLIS. Mr. President, I am obviously disappointed in the objection from my friend and colleague from Illinois, but I do believe that we have to start recognizing that something bad is happening--48 murders, hundreds of assaults, ambushes, premeditated attacks. I do understand the idea that maybe you could prosecute it through existing law, your Federal or State law, but we have an epidemic of ``abolish the police, defund the police,'' marginalizing the police, that suggests to me that even if there are pathways now to properly prosecute these brazen criminals, we have to cut through some of the rhetoric that, honestly, I believe is the responsibility for some of these unprecedented numbers of murders and assaults. So although I am disappointed with the objection today, I look forward to working with my colleague on the Judiciary and others to do everything we can to pass the Protect and Serve Act and to send a very clear message to these increasingly less safe communities and more threatened law enforcement officers that we are going to do everything we can to make our communities safe and to make a police officer's job as safe as it can be. Thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I am here today to honor the life of Officer Tyler Herndon, a member of the Mount Holly Police Department in North Carolina, not far from where I live. He tragically lost his life in the line of duty last week, just days before his 26th birthday. Officer Herndon will be laid to rest today, and I want to take a moment to honor his life, his service to his community, and speak about the noble profession he chose. Officer Herndon was responding to a report of a break-in on Friday morning, and upon his arrival, he was murdered on the scene. He had been a police officer at Mount Holly for less than 2 years. He is described by his colleagues on the Mount Holly Police Department as ``the guy you just couldn't help but like.'' He was active in his community, not only as a law enforcement officer but as a volunteer in local schools. His goal was to become an FBI officer, and he was just approaching the 2 years he needed as a police officer to become eligible to apply for the FBI. Officer Herndon's life and promising career were senselessly taken away. His tragic death is a reminder of the dangers our men and women in blue face every single day that they go to work to protect our communities. In 2020, this year, we have lost 47 police officers who have been killed in the line of duty across the United States. Of those, 8 were ambushed in premeditated attacks, 2 were victims of an unprovoked attack, and 37 officers were killed in the line of duty. These gruesome killings are in addition to the hundreds of officers who have been shot and injured this year. These 47 Americans are not only law enforcement officers--they are somebody's parent; they are someone's spouse; they are someone's child. That is a point that has unfortunately been neglected by some, especially given the shameful effort to not only minimize the work of law enforcement but to also demonize it. Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line to keep us safe every single day. Our debates in Congress should not be about whether to defund or abolish the police; they should be about how we can respect and support law enforcement through greater investments and commonsense reforms. I will never turn my back on the brave men and women of law enforcement who protect North Carolina and protect communities across this great Nation. Congress needs to start showing more support and respect for law enforcement, not only through our words but through our actions, and we must hold violent criminals who target them accountable. That is why I and several other Senate colleagues have introduced the Protect and Serve Act. It is legislation that would create Federal penalties for individuals who deliberately target local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers with violence. Next Congress, I plan to reintroduce this legislation and work to build support until its passage because, with increased penalties like those proposed in the Protect and Serve Act, criminals may start thinking twice before targeting an officer, and if they choose to do it, they are going to regret it. There is no doubt that being a law enforcement officer is one of the hardest and most dangerous jobs in this country, but it is also one of the most noble and honorable professions. They run to danger to protect others. They are fully aware of those dangers as they go through the police academy and begin their career as officers. Yet they do it every single day. Tyler Herndon is an officer who answered the call, ran into danger to protect others, and lost his life. My thoughts and prayers are with Officer Herndon's family, the Mount Holly Police Department, and the community he served. I want Tyler Herndon's family and law enforcement across the State of North Carolina to know that we will never forget the sacrifice he made and they make every day and that we are going to work hard to get them the respect and the resources they deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I have 4 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Subcommittee on Cybersecurity The Subcommittee on Cybersecurity of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 15, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Implications of China's Presence and Investment in Africa.'' Subcommittee on Communication, Technology, Innovation, and The Internet The Subcommittee on Communication, Technology, Innovation, and The Internet of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 15, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Manufacturing, Trade, Consumer Product The Subcommittee on Manufacturing, Trade, and Consumer Product of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 15, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Intellectual property The Subcommittee on Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 15, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, before the senior Senator from Mississippi leaves, I would like to thank him for his comments and for his service to the Nation. He actually spent some quality time in my great State of North Carolina when he was in the Air Force. Senator Wicker, thank you for your service and for your father's as well. I rise for the same purpose--to thank our men and women in uniform, our veterans, and those actively serving. In North Carolina, we have a proud tradition of military service. We have one of the fastest growing populations of veterans in the Nation. We will have surpassed a million over the next couple of years. We also have over 100,000 Active-Duty servicemembers who serve bravely from Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune, Cherry Point, New River, and Seymour Johnson, which is where my colleague from Mississippi served. We also have a fantastic, well-decorated National Guard and the largest air station for the Coast Guard right up in the northeast part of our State. We have a proud tradition of military service, and I am proud to serve them as their U.S. Senator. I also have the privilege of serving as the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee on the Senate Armed Services Committee and on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, where we work every day to try to make life better for our men and women who serve today and for our veterans who have served in the past. I have to say, with regard to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, it is one of my favorite committees because--and the American people need to recognize this--we almost always come together, Republicans and Democrats, to continue to make installments on a debt we can never fully repay. Senator Wicker talked about some of the progress we have made with the VA MISSION Act, which makes sure that we provide to the veterans who need care the best possible care they can get. I also thank for his leadership the Secretary of the VA, Robert Wilkie, who is also a native North Carolinian. Out of 17 Federal agencies, he has taken the Department of Veterans Affairs organization, which was ranked 17th as the preferred place to work, to the top 5, and its satisfaction rating among veterans today is over 90 percent. I would put what they are doing up against any of the best healthcare systems in the private sector. We have a lot of work to do, and I want all of the veterans to know that we are going to honor their service by doing our work here in the Senate of continuing to do better by them. I also want to talk about the fact that it is Military Family Appreciation Month. I think the real silent heroes out there are the spouses and the family members who are left behind when you are deployed or are in training. We have to continue to make progress for military families. Many people may not appreciate what it is like if you are in a career as a spouse and are being moved from station to station every couple of years or how difficult it is to get a job. For many certified positions, it can take a year or more for you to get a job in another State, and by that time, you are already planning for another deployment. We have made a lot of progress in this area, but we have much more to do. On a special note, I want to talk to the military families who are in military housing on our installations across the world, particularly to the folks down at Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune. We are not done with making sure that you have the best, safest, cleanest housing that you can possibly have. We have made a lot of progress in this Congress, but we have a lot of work to do. So I make a commitment to every servicemember and every veteran: As long as I am in the U.S. Senate, we are going to work to continue to repay that debt. We are looking for your feedback, and we are looking for your input so that we can do right by you. To all of the veterans and all of the military families, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for all that you have done and for all that you continue to do. On a final note, to those of the veterans service organizations, with whom I work closely on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, thank you for your continued service. You have served our Nation in the armed services, and you continue to serve by helping veterans and helping to be a voice up here in Congress. To the veterans and military families, God bless you, and thank you for your service. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I thank my staff, Elliott--who is on the floor--Brad, Cirilo, Seth, and Brad for all the work that they have done as we have gone through the nomination process. I was reviewing my prepared remarks this morning, and then I reflected back on a very important moment during the Judiciary Committee hearing where Senator Cornyn asked--he said: You can see, among all of us, we have three-ring binders; we have staff behind us; we have taken weeks to prepare; and you are about to go through some 20 hours of questions, would you mind sharing with us your notes? She looked at a blank notepad that was given to her by the chairman. It had nothing on it. She came to that committee fully prepared to answer any question from the 22 members of the Judiciary Committee purely from what is up there, and she did an extraordinary job. The reason she did an extraordinary job is because she has had an extraordinary career, beginning as a student, then going to Rhodes College, where she was magna cum laude, then going to Notre Dame School of Law, where she graduated first in her class. She went on to be a professor at Notre Dame, and she was, multiple times, voted the Distinguished Professor by a broad spectrum of liberal and conservative students. She has also proven as a judge, with some 600 cases going through the Seventh Circuit, that she has an encyclopedic knowledge of that law. There were so many times when members on the other side of the aisle would try to trip her up or ask her a question. She had no notes to refer to. She got the specifics of the case right. What she demonstrated throughout the entire hearing process, which I attended, was that she interprets--she does her job by doing two things: looking at the plain letter of the Constitution, understanding the limits that the laws can have within the bounds of the Constitution, and rule accordingly. Now, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle of the Judiciary Committee were constantly--it was clear to me, after weeks of attacking Amy Coney Barrett, not directly but through surrogates, that they were trying to demonize this person before she ever came before the committee, like they did with Justice Kavanaugh. But each and every time they asked her a question, she brought them back to the boundaries of the Constitution and the question of law before, in her case, the circuit court, and there was just no way to trip her up. So then what happened? Then they started talking about how you are going to go to the Supreme Court, and you are going to overturn the Affordable Care Act. They asked her questions that they knew she couldn't answer. Justice Ginsburg, pursuant to the Ginsburg rule--they had no intention--no responsible judge would go before the Judiciary Committee and tell you how they are going to rule on a future case. It is actually a violation of their code of conduct. So she told them in so many instances--and what was interesting with some of the members on the other side of the aisle was, on the one hand, they would say: You cannot overturn this precedent or that precedent, and in the same breath, they would say: But we want to make sure you overturn this precedent or that precedent. And every time, Amy Coney Barrett was calm and composed and demonstrated to everybody in that committee that she is going to be objective; she is going to be fair; and she is going to stay within the lines of the Constitution and the matter of law that is before her. Now, I think that it is very important to have a judge like that on the Supreme Court. Our religious freedoms are at stake. Our Second Amendment rights are at stake. We do have people who want activist judges. I don't want an activist judge, period--not for a conservative cause or a liberal cause. I want a judge whom I know that if I someday go before the Supreme Court--or any American--that I have a judge there who is going to be fair, who is going to be thoughtful, who is going to be impartial, and who will always have a concern for both sides of the argument, but at the end of the day, know that they have a responsibility to judge objectively. I have had a couple of opportunities to meet with Amy Coney Barrett. In the last meeting that I had with her in the Capitol, just a few steps away from where we are right now, I brought two pocket Constitutions with me. I said: I have two granddaughters--one will be 3 next week; the other one is a little over 2 months old. I said: Would you mind signing these Constitutions for Sawyer and Willow, my granddaughters? She said: Certainly. She opened it up, she signed her name and just said: ``Dream big.'' When they get a little bit older--they are not old enough yet--I am going to get them to understand the significance of that quick note from an incredible jurist, somebody who dreamed big and realized her American dream--a mother of seven school-aged children, two adopted from Haiti, one with special needs She is going to be the first Supreme Court Justice female on the Supreme Court with school-age children. She has seven of them. She is able to manage the stresses and the challenges of being a working mom while she served with distinction on the Seventh Circuit and while her husband worked as well. She has realized her American dream. I believe that she is going to make sure that everybody else has the freedoms to do the same thing. I think Judge Amy Coney Barrett is going to go down in history as one of the great Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. It is a shame, as the Presiding Officer just said in his comments a moment ago, that this is even a divided decision. In a less political time than we find ourselves today, I suspect that she would have the unanimous support of this body, much the same way that Justice Ginsburg did when she came before the Senate. But, today, I am looking forward to voting for Judge Amy Coney Barrett. I am looking forward to watching her build on what is already a very strong legacy. I am looking forward to making sure that we continue to have a Court that is independent, impartial, focuses on protecting all of our constitutional rights and freedoms. And I know, without a doubt, Amy Coney Barrett is going to be one of those stewards in the U.S. Supreme Court I rise today to express my strong support for the confirmation of our next Supreme Court Justice, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Over the last few weeks, I have heard from thousands of North Carolinians asking me to vote to confirm Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court. Judge Barrett is an incredibly qualified nominee. She is a top-notch legal scholar and jurist. She is widely respected within the legal community, and after three days of intense questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee, I can see why she is so widely respected and why all of her former law school colleagues at Notre Dame Law School support her nomination. I was especially impressed with her composure and impressive knowledge of the law as she answered unfounded allegations about her judicial record from Democratic members of the committee, and shameful smears radical liberals. The way she handled this process I am more convinced than ever that she clearly has the judicial temperament required to serve as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Her answers made clear that she will be unbiased and fair to every party that comes before her. She made clear that she will interpret the law as written, without regard for her personal views or feeling, and will not be a legislator from the bench. Legislating is our job, not hers. She is truly a textualist in the mold of Justice Scalia. Her commitment to applying the law as written, and not legislating from the Bench, should be the standard for every nominee. I am confident that with Judge Barrett on the Court, Americans can rest easy knowing their religious liberty and second amendment rights are secure. Soon, I will cast my vote to confirm Judge Barrett, as Justice Barrett. But first, I must also address the dangerous rhetoric from my Democratic colleagues. First, they claim this nomination is somehow illegitimate. That is false. If the media wasn't so biased this claim would be dismissed outright. As Justice Ginsburg said, a President is elected for 4 years, not 3. President Trump fulfilled the duty he owes to the millions of Americans who elected him in 2016. Similarly, voters elected a Republican majority to the U.S. Senate. Voters expanded that majority in 2018, and now we are fulfilling the duty we owe to those voters by voting on Judge Barrett's nomination. My Democratic colleagues are also threatening to pack the Court if they take control of the Senate and White House. Just as Democrats misrepresented Judge Barrett's record, they are misrepresenting what it means to pack the Court. Packing the Court means adding more seats to the Supreme Court and then immediately nominating and filling these new seats with radical liberal activists. They would add seats until there is an activist liberal majority on the court. And the reason is simple: they want the Court to legislate from the Bench and impose their socialist agenda on the country through fiat, instead of working through the Democratic process. This would wholly undermine and delegitimize the Court. Justice Ginsburg agreed. She said that ``nine is a good number'' and that packing the Court is a bad idea. Democrats need to be honest with the American people. The American people deserve to know where they stand on Court packing, and they deserve to know what liberal activist judges Joe Biden would nominate if he were President. Personally, I am thankful Judge Barrett was willing to answer the call to serve our country. Just like Justice Ginsburg was an inspiration to so many, Justice Barrett will be a role model for young women, like my two granddaughters, who may one day aspire to go to law school or serve their country. I look forward to voting soon to confirm her, and I would ask all my colleagues to join me and do the same. Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to finish my comments before the vote.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the brave and hard-working men and women of law enforcement across this Nation. Last month, I talked about the dangerous consequences of inaction by the Senate if we didn't come to protect them. Unfortunately, since my last speech, four more law enforcement officers, men and women, have died--been murdered--in the line of duty. That is a 20-percent increase over the number last year. That doesn't count the hundreds of police officers who have been injured in the line of duty, many of them still recovering from their wounds. The groundswell of violence against law enforcement is shocking, and it is our responsibility as Senators to act. Enough is enough. Rather than support radical ideas like defunding and abolishing the police, the Senate should take the lead and pass meaningful legislation to protect law enforcement officers, increasing funding, improving training, and raising standards. That is why I again call on my colleagues to support and pass the Protect and Serve Act, a bill that I sponsored and a bill that I hope we can get passed. The Protect and Serve Act would punish dangerous criminals who murder a law enforcement officer in the line of duty. If they murder a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, they will be sentenced to life. If they injure a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, they will be sentenced to 10 years in prison. The premise of the legislation is simple: There is no escape from justice for dangerous criminals who intentionally assault or kill a law enforcement officer. The Senate passes legislation almost every day in this Chamber by unanimous consent, but I am sad to report that if I try to get unanimous consent for this bill, we would have objection on the floor. The heated rhetoric and the violent attacks on officers are having real-world impacts, and the safety of law enforcement has never been at the low that it is today. Across the country, recruitments are down. Fewer people are applying to go into service or into law enforcement academies, and retirements are up. We are seeing our law enforcement ranks dwindle. It is sad, but it is not surprising. Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every single day. Every morning, they wake up, they kiss their spouse goodbye, and they don't know if they are going to come back safely. But when they spend all day being disrespected while doing this very difficult and very dangerous job and politicians harass them or allow them to be harassed, I should say, by violent mobs and protesters, there is no wonder morale is at an alltime low. Fewer police means more criminal activity. It means hard-working American citizens who go to work every day just to make their lives better are living in communities that are less safe. We cannot sit idly by and allow the streets to be filled with dangerous, violent criminals who face no consequences. Instead, we must speak up and show our men and women in blue that we respect them and we back them. They put their lives on the line to protect us, and we should do the work in Congress to protect them. In fact, in the last Congress, Speaker Pelosi allowed this bill to be voted on. She supported making it a law. But now her conference is run by radical leftists who want to abolish the police or defund the police, and she is not even allowing this bill to be brought to the floor. She won't speak in support of law enforcement officers despite the rising tide of violence against them. That is why the responsibility lies here in the Senate for us to show our support and let law enforcement communities across the country know that we have their back. Let's protect police and deputies, and let's pass the Protect and Serve Act. I urge the American people to call your Senators and tell them that you want this bill passed. You want law enforcement to be safer, and you want our communities to be safer. Don't be silent. Help me fight for the men and women in blue. They are counting on all of us.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cramer and my colleague Senator Rounds from North Dakota. North Carolina's businesses are struggling. I heard Senator Cardin and am sympathetic to most of what he said. Yet, as I have traveled across the State--and I have had 65 telephone townhalls since COVID started and have talked with citizens in North Carolina for an hour, spending 55 minutes hearing from them and answering their questions--I know we have a very difficult problem in North Carolina and across the country. I just talked with a hotel and lodging association and a restaurant association a few weeks ago. They said we have 18,000 restaurants in North Carolina, and 9,000 of them are at risk of closing permanently. When we passed the CARES Act, we knew we had to do something big, bold, and fast, and I think everyone at the Small Business Administration and in the banking industry mobilized to do something that was unprecedented. They got that money out and into the hands of businesses. The program is called the Paycheck Protection Program for a reason. We were doing everything we could to make sure that those businesses that were willing could make payroll--could keep people on their benefits, could keep people on their healthcare--and could weather the storm while closures were going on all across this country. They were closing down businesses or, certainly, dramatically reducing their business. Thank goodness for the brave businesses that stepped up and applied for Paycheck Protection Program loans, and thank goodness for the banks that were willing to underwrite them while we were still, really, working the rules out--literally building the cars as they were rolling down the road. They should be commended for what they have done. This measure is a simple measure. We know that more than 85 percent of all of the loans that were underwritten under the Paycheck Protection Program were under $150,000, and we know that they were small businesses. Yet we have a lot of paperwork that these businesses are going to have to do, and small businesses interacting with the Federal Government on four or five occasions before the loan is forgiven is a daunting task when you are still trying to figure out how you can make payroll and how you can keep your business going. Then you have the banking industry that we rely on for moving all of this capital out there and making sure that payrolls can be met and want to be prepared for the next tranche of CARES Act Paycheck Protection Program loans. Yet we are going to tie them up over paperwork with these small business loans that we can forgive? It is not like we are turning a blind eye to compliance. We will look at that loan portfolio with the same sort of sampling that the IRS does to make sure there is not any fraud or abuse and to make sure people are held accountable. If Senator Cardin really wants to get to the work of the next Paycheck Protection Program, let's lay the groundwork and clear the plumbing so we may call on the Small Business Administration, which is in the process of hiring 1,200 people just to deal with loan forgiveness. The banks that want to provide more loans need to clear their backlogs so they will have the capacity to do it as fast as possible. Senator Cardin is right in that we have a lot more to do. This is a step in a long journey. Yet, in doing this forgiveness program--the measure that Senator Cardin objected to--we would have the opportunity to take a straw off the camel's back. We have to do something. We continue following up on the CARES Act, but I am very disappointed that we have gotten where we are in this Chamber when everybody knows this is good legislation. We should do it, but they are turning their backs on businesses. Unfortunately, I think it is going to result in more people being on unemployment and more businesses closing. I will work as hard as I can with Senator Cramer and Senator Rounds and other Members to get this done. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

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

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, across the country, Americans watched in horror as news stations reported the shooting of two sheriff's deputies in Los Angeles, who were brutally targeted by a murderous, violent criminal. In North Carolina, just 2 days earlier, sheriff's deputy Ryan Hendrix, a father of two young children, a man planning to get married, was murdered in cold blood while responding to a family under siege by an evil criminal. So far in 2020 alone, 37 law enforcement officers have been murdered by violent criminals and hundreds have been wounded while protecting our communities. Despite these senseless deaths and the gruesome violence against police, there are those who support radical ideas like defunding or abolishing the police. These dangerous policies would allow criminals to roam free throughout our communities, unchallenged and unafraid. The agitators pushing to abolish the police have sown the seeds of discord in our country by disrespecting law enforcement and disregarding their brave service to our Nation. Just look at Asheville, NC. Since June 1, over 30 police officers have left the law enforcement profession. These brave men and women are tired of being attacked physically, emotionally, and personally, simply for trying to keep their communities safe, every single damn day. They put on a uniform to go protect their community, not sure if they are going to come back safe, and they do it anyway, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. But they are sick of the opportunistic politicians like the Democratic leader and AOC attacking them for just doing their jobs. Worst of all is the specter of targeted attacks like those against the deputies in Los Angeles. The harmful rhetoric being used by the radical, anti-police leftists encourages an environment of hostility, which emboldens criminals and murderers. The result is brazen attacks against law enforcement officers in broad daylight. In light of the toxic environment being created in this country, which devalues police, I believe the Senate must act to protect law enforcement officers and show them our support. That is why I have introduced the Protect and Serve Act with 16 of my Republican colleagues. The Protect and Serve Act would punish criminals who target law enforcement officers and harm them. These criminals will receive up to 10 years in prison, and if they murder or kidnap a law enforcement officer, they will get a life sentence. It is sad that Congress even needs to consider a bill to protect police officers, but let me be clear: Attacks against any law enforcement officers are no laughing matter. Congress must pass the Protect and Serve Act immediately and boldly say there is no escape from justice for dangerous criminals who intentionally assault or kill a law enforcement officer. Today, I call on every single Democrat to support this commonsense legislation. The question is simple: Do you support the men and women in blue who fight every day to keep our communities safe or do you support lawless, reckless, liberal mobs who want to defund the police? It is a yes-or-no question. You either back the blue or you back anarchy. As long as I am a U.S. Senator I will do everything I can to protect our men and women who protect our communities every single day. I expect and they deserve no less. I hope my Democratic colleagues can stand up to AOC, the Squad, and their radical liberal base and do the same. It is time to back the blue. It is time to restore safety in our communities. It is time to end the killing of law enforcement officers and people just trying to protect us every single day. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I rise today to honor the achievements of the organizations and people who led the successful redevelopment of Historic Ashe Hospital in Jefferson, NC. This once abandoned property on the National Register of Historic Places today provides 46 affordable homes for seniors, people with disabilities, and homeless individuals at a time when affordable housing is needed more than ever. This incredible property was developed through the use of the Low- Income Housing Tax Credit, known as the Housing Credit. In North Carolina and across the country, it is one of our most important tools in the fight to provide affordable housing for at-risk families in our communities. More than 87,000 North Carolina homes have been developed using the Housing Credit, and more than 3 million homes nationwide. They serve our low-income seniors, veterans, disabled individuals, and working families. That is why I am pleased to announce that this important site has been recognized by the Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition as a 2020 recipient of the Charles L. Edson Tax Credit Award, which recognizes excellence in the affordable housing industry and organizations that have demonstrated the most impactful use of the Housing Credit. Historic Ashe Hospital in Jefferson is no exception. The historic building includes a community room for residents to gather, office space for those now working from home, a library for residents of all ages, and a memory room with artifacts from the original hospital. Wide hallways, tall ceilings, and large windows remind residents of the great public spaces of the past and beautiful views of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Historic Ashe is also located across the street from the Appalachian District Health Department, which delivers services including case management, skilled nursing, physical and occupational therapy, and respite care. Vaya Health of western North Carolina provides a variety of mental health services on-site, and other community partners provide GED classes to those interested, transportation to the local senior center, volunteer opportunities, and a variety of other education and support services. It is truly a monumental achievement in terms of creative property development and the judicious use of public and private funding to benefit the residents of Jefferson, while contributing to the Nation's vital supply of affordable housing. Several groups and individuals were instrumental in bringing the project to fruition, including Northwestern Housing Enterprises, Incorporated, Redstone Equity Partners, Foss & Company, Bank of Tennessee, Federal Home Loan Bank of Cincinnati, Tise-Kiester Architects of Chapel Hill, and notably E. G. ``Ned'' Fowler, President of Northwestern Housing Enterprises. To everyone involved in the development of Historic Ashe Hospital for affordable housing in Jefferson, I offer my congratulations and gratitude on behalf of the people of North Carolina. Thank you.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, I want to thank Erica Songer for her service in the Senate and in particular for her service as the subcommittee's minority chief counsel. The Intellectual Property Subcommittee has been the most active subcommittee's in the Senate, in no small part due to Erica's work. We have worked in a bipartisan fashion to modernize our intellectual property system through forward- looking legislative reforms. Across numerous hearings on various aspects of intellectual property law, as well as several bills, Erica has been a vital resource to my team and me. During this session, Erica has served the subcommittee in countless ways. From promoting women in the intellectual property field to reforming our Nation's patent eligibility laws, Erica has been an innovator and go- getter. There were countless times throughout this Congress when the subcommittee's work would get tough and it appeared we were at an insurmountable impasse. Each time, Erica found a way forward and kept us moving towards our shared goals: a stronger intellectual property system. While I am sad that the Senate and the subcommittee will be losing a staffer as valuable as Erica, I am grateful for her public service these past 4 years. Erica has shown that she will excel at whatever she commits to, whether graduating from Harvard Law School or making partner at one of the largest law firms in the world or serving as the chief counsel to my good friend Chris Coons--and I am excited for her as she steps into a new role and begins a new adventure.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Sheriff Deputy Ryan Phillip Hendrix, 34, of Hendersonville who passed away on Thursday, September 10, 2020, while in the line of duty. He was born December 9, 1985, in Asheville, North Carolina to his parents Donald L. and Heidi J. Hendrix. Ryan was a devoted Christian and attended Grace Blue Ridge Church with Pastor Chas Morris. Shortly after graduating from Hendersonville Christian School in 2004, Ryan enlisted with the U.S. Marine Corps and graduated as a lance corporal marine in 2005. He was in the Marine Reserves for 5 years and volunteered to serve a tour of duty in Iraq in 2006. Ryan began his career with the Henderson County Sheriff's Office as a detention officer in June 2012. In May 2015, he completed basic law enforcement training and became a patrol deputy and later a field training officer. He was an active member of the Henderson County Sheriff's Office SWAT team and was assigned as a patrol detective to Charlie Squad. Ryan excelled in sports, especially baseball and soccer, and enjoyed fishing, hunting, biking, kayaking, and camping. Ryan's children, Elloree and Merritt, were the love of his life and always his greatest priority. He spent all of his free time with them and continually involved them in outdoor activities. He enjoyed teaching them how to raise animals and spending time with their extended family of grandparents, aunts and uncles, and many cousins. Ryan had a keen instinct and could see things most couldn't. He was swift to action and was very intuitive while possessing a magnanimous heart. He would choose not to fight with a fool, but rather help them to find a better way. Ryan loved to bring humor to every situation, and even during the roughest times, you would always see a smile on his face. Ryan tragically lost his life during the early morning hours of September 10, 2020, while in the line of duty. As the world slept, Ryan responded to assist a family in need of help when they became innocent victims of a violent encounter. We all know the tragic outcome, but Ryan refused to let the story end there. While his death will leave a giant void in the hearts of those who love him, he continues to exemplify a servant's heart even in passing. Ryan was also an organ donor and will continue helping strangers for a lifetime, even after making the ultimate sacrifice. He was doing the job he was born to do and died doing the job he loved. As the U.S. Senator from North Carolina, I am forever grateful for Ryan's service to our State and Nation. He gave his life protecting his fellow citizens, and we will never forget the sacrifice he made.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.