[Pages S7296-S7313]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MOTION TO DISCHARGE--S.J. RES. 77

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act
of 1976, I move to discharge the Foreign Relations Committee from
further consideration of S.J. Res. 77, a joint resolution providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the
United Arab Emirates of certain defense articles and services.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I am asking our colleagues to
stand up for two very important principles. One is the congressional
oversight over arms sales abroad and, secondly, to ensure that these
sales, in fact, promote and protect the long-term national security of
the United States.
Colleagues, I wish we didn't find ourselves in the position of having
to discuss our concerns with this sale in this kind of forum. The
United Arab Emirates has, indeed, been an important partner in the
fight against terrorism and across the region and, I believe, will
continue to do so. However, a sale of this magnitude requires the
appropriate due diligence.
For the past few decades, the executive branch has respected the
congressional oversight of the arms sales process, a critical piece of
which is an informal review period during which we get answers to
pressing questions. We have an opportunity to review sensitive
information so that, when sales come up for the formal notification,
which is what we have before us now, we have a clearer path forward.
Unfortunately, in this case, the Trump administration decided to simply
ignore congressional rights here and the review process, formally
notifying the sales of these complex weapons systems, along with other
weaponry, totaling $23 billion.
Beyond obliterating the congressional review process, the
administration also seems to have rushed through the interagency review
of a sale of this magnitude. Whereas, a sale of this scope would
normally merit months and months of detailed deliberations between the
Departments of Defense and State, this sale was announced with more
missing than a few dotted i's and crossed t's.
I will go into more detail later before we vote, but the bottom line
is that there are many outstanding issues that are critical to U.S.
national security that have not been addressed, including, by way of
example, the United Arab Emirates' present and future military
relationships with Russia and China. My understanding is that there are
negotiations to have with China regarding an airstrip for the Chinese
military off of the UAE. Is that in the national interest and security
of the United States?
Should we not have a definitive commitment from the UAE that it will
not move forward if these arms sales move forward, including with the
most sophisticated stealth jet fighter that we have? How do we work to
safeguard U.S. technology? the guarantees we will have in place about
how U.S.-origin weapons will be used given the Emirates' history of
transferring weapons to a terrorist organization and violating the U.N.
arms embargo in Libya? the longer term implications of an arms race in
the region? and then, yes, the impact that it could have on both our
and Israel's qualitative military edge?
If we aren't going to be willing to ask these questions, then we have
to think about the magnitude of the sale without caring about the
consequences.
I have heard a number of my colleagues advocate in support of these
sales because they believe it will help our like-minded partners better
posture against Iran. Now, no one is more clear-eyed in this Chamber or
has pursued Iran and its threat of nuclear weapons more than I, and we
are clear-eyed about the threat Iran continues to pose to national
security interests, but we have yet to understand exactly what military
threat the F-35s or armed drones will be addressing vis-a-vis Iran.
Furthermore, according to the Trump administration, as recently as last
year, the UAE continued to host a number of companies that facilitated
Iranian financial transactions in violation of various U.S. sanctions.
So Iran is a threat, but you are helping it facilitate U.S. financial
transactions. It is not that I have said so but that the Trump
administration has said so. Meanwhile, over the past year, Iran has
ramped up its nuclear capabilities amidst American diplomatic fallout.
So, if we really want to talk about countering Iran, we need a
comprehensive, diplomatic strategy. Arming partners with complex
weapons systems that could take years to come online is not a serious
strategy with which to confront the very real and timely threats from
Iran.
I have also heard some of our colleagues argue that, if we do not
sell these weapons, the UAE will turn to China and Russia. Well, let's
be clear: They already do. They already do. Our own Department of
Defense's inspector general recently reported that the UAE may be
funding the Russian mercenary Wagner Group in Libya. U.N. reporting
implicates the UAE's use of Chinese-manufactured drones, in violation
of the U.N. arms embargo, also in Libya.
So, while I absolutely agree that we have to counter Chinese and
Russian influence in the region, again, this requires a real strategy,
not simply more arms. Isn't this a conversation and a commitment that
we should get in writing from the UAE as part of such an arms sale? We
don't have that. Furthermore, if we go forward with these sales, yet
deny similar requests to countries like Qatar or Saudi Arabia, where
will they go for their advanced weaponry to keep pace, and what
reaction will Iran have to them? Do we really think we can sell this
just to the UAE and not have those other countries come knocking on our
door, starting a very sophisticated arms race in a tinder box of the
world?
Finally, let me be very clear: I applaud the Abraham accords as a
historical turning point for Israel and the Arab world. These new,
formal relationships have the possibility of transforming the region
much more broadly and bringing peace, stability, and prosperity to
people who desperately want

[[Page S7297]]

and deserve it. Yet, as the administration and the Emirates have
continued to stress, these sales are neither a reward nor are they part
of these accords.
So why can't we take a little more time to really assess the best way
forward? We are in the midst of promoting a sale--this is the
administration--that has some of the most significant transfers of
advanced U.S. technology without clarity of a number of key details
regarding the sale or sufficient answers to critical national security
questions. This is far more than about congressional prerogative,
although I would argue that it is a critical element of our policies on
arms sales; this is about national security concerns to which we should
have an answer before those arms sales move forward.
Again, colleagues, the bottom line is this: There are far too many
outstanding questions and very serious questions about long-term U.S.
national security interests. Perhaps, after considerable engagement
with the executive, we would assess that all of these sales do, in
fact, advance our national security. Given the length of time it will
take for the delivery of these systems, it would seem quite reasonable
to expect to have 40 days to evaluate these questions.
So I urge my colleagues to stand up for Congress's role in the
process of determining arms sales as well as for having clear answers
to the critical questions that are posed to long-term U.S. national
security interests.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Yount). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am on the floor today to speak to
resolutions upon which we will begin voting today regarding arms sales
proposed by the administration to the United Arab Emirates.
I am on the floor today to ask my colleagues to support these
resolutions of disapproval upon two grounds: one, the protection of
congressional prerogative and, two, a question of U.S. national
security.
First, let me cover the question of congressional prerogative. We
have traditionally debated arms sales here on occasion, and the reason
why we don't have constant debates in this body on arms sales, the
reason why we don't have resolutions on every sale that is noticed by
the administration, is because we have built into our practice an
ability for the Senate to consult with the administration beforehand on
a bipartisan basis.
Over the years, since the passage of the law allowing for Congress to
have a role in the sale of arms to foreign nations, administration
after administration, Republican and Democrat, has observed a period of
consultation with Congress in which the administration comes to the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, comes to the House Foreign
Relations Committee, presents the reasons for the sale, and then
addresses concerns raised, often in a bipartisan manner, by Republicans
and Democrats.
Again, this has happened in both Democratic and Republican
administrations, with Democratic and Republican Congresses, and often
that consultative process results in issues that Congress has being
resolved so that you never have to have a vote on the Senate floor.
Something different happened with this sale. The administration was
so desperate to rush through the sale before the end of their
administration that they blew through the consultation process. It just
didn't happen. There was no ability for the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee to weigh in on this particular sale. It was rushed to notice,
and our only option was to bring it before the full Senate.
Now, under any circumstances, I would argue that the Senate should
stand up for our right to have a role. The reason that we built in this
consultative process was because the Senate was actually unhappy with
the amount of input it had decades ago and was threatening to
dramatically expand its oversight role on arms sales. Instead, a deal
was worked out in which the administration said they would come for
this consultation.
Now it appears that those consultations are no longer the practice.
That reduces our role as a foreign-policy-making body. And remember, we
have abdicated all sorts of responsibilities over the years when it
comes to what should be a coequal responsibility to set the broad
direction of U.S. foreign policy with the executive branch. This would
be yet another chip away at Congress's participation in the setting of
U.S. national security policy. I am not sure we will ever get it back.
But on this sale, in particular, the consultative process was really
important because this sale is as big and as hairy and as complicated
as you get. We are, for the first time, selling F-35s and MQ-9 Reaper
drones into the heart of the Middle East. We have never done it before.
There are only 14 countries that currently operate the F-35, and almost
all of them are NATO allies. Turkey was on the list for a period of
time, but because they ended up making a choice to go with the Russian
missile defense system, they were taken out of the program. So the
partners that remain are the ones that you would suspect--Britain,
Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, Denmark, Canada.
There are even fewer countries that we have sold Reaper drones to--
Australia, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, UK, and India.
This is the first time that we would sell these incredibly lethal,
incredibly complicated technologies into the heart of the Middle East--
a region that, arguably, is not in need of more weapons.
What we risk doing here is fueling an arms race. Today we may be
selling the F-35s and the MQ-9s to the UAE, but the Saudis are going to
want it, the Qataris have already requested it, and it just fuels
Iran's interest in continuing to build up its own military program.
But, more specifically to this sale, we have to ask ourselves whether
the UAE is ready for this technology or whether their behavior over the
past several years makes them an unworthy partner for this set of
highly complicated U.S. defense technology.
I will stipulate, as I think every Member of this body will, that the
UAE is often a very important ally of the United States. There is an
important cooperative relationship that exists between the United
States and the UAE. We share counterterrorism information together. We
were both involved in the fight against ISIS. We work together to
counter Iranian influence in the region. And, of course, the UAE's
recognition of Israel is good for the United States as well.
But for as many places as we cooperate with UAE, there are many
points of division, and those points of division often involve the use
of U.S. military technology against the interests of the United States.
The UAE has been, for years, involved in a civil war in Yemen that is
terrible for U.S. national security interests. They may not be as
involved as they were a couple of years ago, but they are still a
barrier to peace. They still refuse to make humanitarian contributions
to help the situation on the ground. So far in 2020, there are zero
dollars from the UAE put into the U.N. appeal to try to fight off
starvation and cholera inside Yemen.
At one point, they took U.S. equipment and they handed it to
extremist militias inside Yemen. That is open-source reporting. The UAE
copped to it when the reporters asked them whether they had done it.
They gave our equipment to Salafist militias inside a theater of war.
There are other reports that they were dropping American-made TOW
missiles out of the sky into areas of that country that were controlled
by al-Qaida-aligned elements. And they are, right now, as we speak, in
violation of the Libya arms embargo.
The U.N. Panel of Experts came to the conclusion that the majority of
arms transfers into Libya to the Haftar armed forces were either from
Jordan or the United Arab Emirates. The panel found that the UAE was in
repeated noncompliance with the arms embargo.
And guess what is on the list of the weapons that the UAE was
transferring into Libya in violation of a U.S.-supported arms embargo--
armed drones.

[[Page S7298]]

We are talking about selling the UAE the most lethal, most advanced
armed drone technology in the world today, and as we speak, the UAE is
in violation of the arms embargo to Libya, fueling that civil war,
specifically sending drones into that theater.
So I am not here to say that we shouldn't be in the security business
with the UAE. There are a lot of important common projects. But the
question is, with a country that is part of the problem more often than
part of the solution in Yemen, a country that is in existing violation
of an arms embargo in Libya, a country that has just within the last
several years transferred our weapons to al-Qaida-aligned militias,
without resolving those issues, is this the moment to be selling, for
the first time ever, F-35s, armed drones into the heart of the Middle
East?
One last caution. The countries that I mentioned on this list are by
and large in business with the United States and not with China and
Russia. The UAE has pretty deep and complicated defense relationships
with China, Russia, and Chinese and Russian companies. Query whether we
can be absolutely certain that the technology on board those fighter
jets, those drones, is going to stay in the right hands.
There arguably is no other country on the list for the F-35s that
does as much business with China and Russia as the UAE does. In fact,
as I mentioned, we pulled the F-35 program from Turkey because they are
involved with Russia on a very complicated and important ground defense
system, and we are just learning about the nature of the partnerships
that the UAE has with the Chinese and the Russians.
It stands to reason that this would be one of the issues that a
consultative process with Congress would resolve. It also stands to
reason that we could probably come to a conclusion during that
consultative process.
If the UAE really wants those weapons, wants to be the first country
in the heart of the Middle East to get the F-35 or the Reaper drones,
then I assume they would want to be able to assure Congress and the
administration that there is no chance of technology transfer into the
wrong hands. That is what the congressional consultative process would
have gotten us, but it didn't happen in this case, and so we are stuck
with this vote--a means for Congress to stand up for its right to
participate in this question of arms sales.
Believe me, my Republican colleagues are going to want that right
when a Democratic administration comes into office. You are not going
to want to send a signal today to the Biden administration that they
don't have to consult with you as the majority party, potentially, in
2021. But if you vote against these resolutions, then you are
essentially saying the Biden administration doesn't need to consult
with Congress on it. They probably will because they want to do the
right thing, but anybody who votes against these resolutions is
essentially endorsing an end-around of Congress by any administration,
Republican or Democratic.
It is also important to say that on policy grounds, it is not time to
do these sales. There are too many outstanding questions about who the
UAE transfers weapons to, what they are doing in Libya, why they
haven't been part of the solution in Yemen, and what their relationship
is with some of our most important adversaries around the globe. Until
we satisfy the answers to those questions, we should not move forward
with this sale.
Finally, there is no threat to the accords between UAE and Israel
unwinding if we simply press pause on this sale until those questions
are answered.
I do want to be in business with the UAE. I think they are an
important defense partner. But I think there is far too much at stake
with the sale of these weapons right now to rush it through, and I
don't think there is any downside risk if we were to say ``not now''
until we get all of our t's crossed and all of our i's dotted.
Let's stand up for Congress's prerogative on the sale of arms to
foreign countries. Let's slow down this process that has been rushed,
potentially to the great detriment of U.S. national security. Let's
support these resolutions of disapproval this afternoon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire

Coronavirus

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to really
highlight the important work that has been underway by Members on both
sides of the aisle in the Senate and Members on both sides of the aisle
in the House to try to come up with an agreement to deliver urgently
needed relief to address the challenges from the coronavirus that
people are facing across this country. I also hope that we can work
together to get this across the finish line and that Senate leadership
will be willing to join in that effort.
I think most of us are painfully aware of the devastating impact this
pandemic has had in communities across our Nation, but the numbers do
bear repeating. More than 15 million Americans have been infected with
the virus, more than 285,000 Americans have now died from COVID, and we
recently hit a new record high of 102,000 people hospitalized with
COVID. Just to provide some context, our largest city in New Hampshire
is Manchester. It has 112,000 residents. So we have enough people in
the hospital across this country to fill the city of Manchester.
The situation is dire. People need help. Every one of those numbers
that I have referenced is much more than a number; it reflects an
American life, an American family, our communities. The human toll of
this crisis is crushing, and we are up against the clock as our
hospitals run out of beds.
This crisis has been all-encompassing. In addition to the severe
strains on our healthcare system, so many others are being battered by
this pandemic.
Small businesses are closing, and even more are on the verge of
collapsing if we don't get them some help.
Our transportation networks, from buses to airplanes, have been
forced to lay off staff, cut routes, and in some cases just discontinue
service altogether.
American families are going hungry. We have all seen the long lines
on the news at night showing the number of people waiting to get food
from food banks.
Too many people are facing homelessness. In New Hampshire, in the
city of Manchester alone, we have 35 homeless encampments--35. Two
years ago, we did not have that number of homeless.
Parents are struggling to help their children continue their
education at home, sometimes with no access to broadband or really bad
access. We know women are leaving the workforce because of the strains
of trying to provide support to their children and deal with the other
challenges of COVID.
State and local governments have been stretched to the maximum. In
New Hampshire, we are facing severe budgetary shortfalls, and many of
our communities may have to make some difficult decisions to cut first
responders or teachers or other municipal workers if they don't get
help.
We hear every day the number of people who need our help, and they
can't wait any longer. This is the holiday season, the end of the year.
We are headed into the worst months of winter. In New Hampshire, we
have restaurants that can no longer be open because they don't have
outdoor seating. We have small businesses that are worried about
getting through the next few months.
For the past 3 weeks, we have had a group of bipartisan lawmakers in
both the House and Senate--so bipartisan and bicameral--who have been
engaged in good-faith negotiations to get a relief package out the door
as swiftly as possible. We were able to reach an agreement on a broad
bipartisan framework last week, and we have continued negotiations
around-the-clock since that was announced.
In New Hampshire and throughout this country, our small businesses
have been some of the hardest hit by this pandemic. In New Hampshire,
we are a small business State. They are the lifeblood of our economy.
They account for 99 percent of all of our businesses and more than 50
percent of our workforce. In the country as a whole, two-thirds of our
jobs are created by small businesses.

In the bipartisan framework that we are negotiating, we have another
round

[[Page S7299]]

of the Paycheck Protection Program, which has been instrumental for so
many of our small businesses since back in March when we passed it and
created the program in the CARES Act.
Overall, our bipartisan relief proposal would provide significant
financial assistance for our small businesses, for our restaurants, for
our live venues, which in many cases have been shut down completely,
and for our childcare centers.
In New Hampshire, if we don't get some help for our childcare
centers, at the end of this pandemic, we will have lost fully 50
percent of our childcare centers. That means the families who depend on
that childcare so that they can go to work are not going to have any
safe place for their kids.
I hear frequently from New Hampshire businesses that have used the
PPP program effectively to keep workers on payroll and make rent that
they still need more assistance if they are going to get through this
winter.
Our tourism and hospitality industries are particularly hard hit, and
they are vital to New Hampshire's economy. They are our second biggest
industry.
Restaurants in New Hampshire account for nearly 70,000 jobs and for
$3 billion in sales, according to the National Restaurant Association.
We have to provide some help for them.
The future of our small businesses in New Hampshire and throughout
the country hang in the balance. If we fail to act, we fail them.
For many American families, the past 9 months have been the most
difficult economic challenges of their lives, and the bleak jobs report
last week reaffirms what we have been seeing in our communities. Nearly
10 million jobs have been lost since the start of the pandemic. That
means people are out of work, struggling to put food on the table for
themselves and their families, struggling to keep a roof over their
heads. The eviction moratorium is about to expire. That is the story
for 10 million families.
In the bipartisan framework that we have been negotiating, we have
urgently needed funding for additional unemployment insurance. We
provide rental assistance to help not just those people who might lose
their housing but also the landlords, who have been hit very hard
because people haven't been able to pay their rent. It also increases
funding for food assistance programs to combat the surging food
insecurity in our communities.
We can't afford further delay in delivering these resources. The
unemployment benefits are due to expire at the end of the month, and
time is of the essence.
One of the important areas of concern that this bipartisan proposal
addresses is the need for Federal funding to help our State and our
local communities. They are facing massive revenue shortfalls--at least
in my home State of New Hampshire--and that threatens their ability to
provide essential services. We can't afford to lose those people who
provide those services, who, if they are laid off, may be forced to go
someplace else and won't be available when we have the money to rehire
them. We can't afford to lose the teachers, and already we are seeing
too many teachers who are retiring or leaving the profession because
they are worried about safety and exposure, or they don't have the
resources to be able to do the online teaching that is required now. If
we don't get this funding out the door, we are going to see more of
those losses.
In New Hampshire and in our cities and towns, they are being
stretched to the limits. We are at the precipice of this crisis. Cases
are continuing to go up. Hospitalizations are going up. The death toll
is going up. People need help, and they need it now.
In New Hampshire, our nursing homes have been especially devastated
by this crisis. We have the highest percentage of COVID deaths in our
long-term care facilities of any State in the country. Eighty-one
percent of our death toll has been tied to nursing homes.
Our bipartisan relief framework includes necessary Federal support
for the Provider Relief Fund, and it allocates urgently needed help for
our nursing homes that are on the frontlines.
We also provide help to address substance use disorders and mental
health. What we have seen across the country is that COVID-19 has
exacerbated what already existed in the opioid epidemic. We were
beginning to make some progress in New Hampshire and in many States
across the country until the coronavirus hit, and now we are seeing
that progress being lost.
Our plan bolsters support for Federal investments in a number of
programs that respond to the substance use disorder crisis in our
communities, and it also addresses suicide prevention.
This pandemic has created significant burdens for those who are
struggling with substance use disorders. And, of course, we have heard
the number of mental health issues has been greatly exacerbated.
Our bipartisan plan addresses three of the most important pieces of
the strategy to get on the other side of this pandemic: testing,
tracing, and vaccine distribution. As overwhelming as this crisis has
become, we can't just throw our hands in the air. We have to continue
to prioritize robust testing and contact tracing so we can track and
contain community spread. Of course, we need to follow the CDC
guidelines--wearing masks, maintaining social distancing, staying home
as much as possible, hand washing--so that we can help flatten the
curve and help our hospitals. And now, as we are, we hope, just weeks
away from having a vaccine, we need to ensure that every measure is
taken so we are ready to go on day one. The manufacturing and
distribution of a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine are critical to
putting an end to this pandemic, to reopening our economy, and to
restoring normalcy in our society. Our COVID framework boosts funding
for each of these three priorities.
When the Senate came together during the early days of this crisis,
we worked in good faith to deliver the CARES Act that provided relief
to Americans throughout the country. We did it before, and I believe we
can do it again.
This bipartisan framework is the only bipartisan measure in Congress.
It is the only bicameral measure in Congress. It is the only proposal
that has an opportunity to clear both Houses.
We aren't done, obviously. Negotiations are ongoing. There are a lot
more people who have to see this work and, hopefully, will decide to
support it, and we still have more concerns to sort out. But this is a
compromise. It doesn't have everything I want to see. It is not what I
would have written if I had been able to write it by myself, but it is
a compromise that I believe we can get majority support to pass.
Of course, it is step one. It is a relief bill to help Americans stay
afloat over these next very difficult months, and our work doesn't end
if we can provide this relief. We are still going to need a stimulus
bill to get our economy moving again. But, right now, the most urgent
need is to address those concerns that individuals and families have.
If Congress fails to act and get this over the finish line, the
consequences will be dire. Our hospitals are already overwhelmed. Too
many small businesses are closing. Families are going hungry and facing
homelessness. Inaction is really not an option. We need to get this
done.
There is no reason we can't come to an agreement. We have done it
before. I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle to join in this
effort. I urge Leader McConnell and Leader Schumer to move forward with
us to help us get this proposal over the line so that together we can
deliver much needed relief to Americans and do it before the holiday
season so that people will have something to look forward to.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from Louisiana

Tribute to Diane Deaton

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few moments
today about a Baton Rouge and Louisiana rock star. I am talking about
Baton Rouge's own Diane Deaton.
This week, Diane announced that she is going to retire from her post
as a weather forecaster at WAFB-TV, which we refer to as Channel 9,
where she has served on ``9News This Morning'' and on ``Early Edition''
for many years.
Diane is known--widely known--affectionately as Queen D. She has been
reporting the weather for the people of Louisiana, particularly
Southeast Louisiana, for 37 years--37 years--and all

[[Page S7300]]

at the same station. Over a WAFB career spanning, what, nearly four
decades, Diane has become a beloved fixture in our State and in our
State capital.
Her compassion has been on regular display--and not only in the way
that she has walked Louisianians through hurricanes and tornadoes.
Weather is important to us in Louisiana. Diane has invested in first
and second graders at Buchanan Elementary in East Baton Rouge Parish
through an extraordinary program called the Reading Friends program.
She has built new homes for families through Habitat for Humanity,
where she currently serves as a board member. Diane has been a part of
LSU Tiger HATS pet therapy program. That is a program where she and her
colleagues visit young patients and their families at one of our
leading hospitals, Our Lady of the Lake Children's Hospital.
Diane's awards are many. I won't list them all, but they include the
Louisiana Association of Broadcasters' Lifetime Achievement Award, the
Holly Reynolds Humanitarian of the Year Award--that was from the
Capital Area Animal Welfare Society--and the Ulli Goodman Volunteer of
the Year Award from the Baton Rouge Ballet Theater. I don't know how
she finds the time, but Diane is also certified as a Delta Society Pet
Partner for her work using therapy animals.
Yet I noticed that Diane's announcement was characteristically humble
as she steps away after 37 years. Here is what she said: ``I have never
taken for granted the honor and privilege you have given me over these
many years by choosing me and my colleagues here at WAFB-TV to keep you
and your family safe and informed.''
I think that the gratitude among Louisiana and Baton Rouge residents
is certainly mutual.
I am glad to hear that Diane will not be leaving our great State. I
want to emphasize that. She is going to retire in Louisiana, and I hope
she enjoys every moment--every single moment--she gets to sleep in
after December 18. No one can argue--no fair-minded person can argue--
that she hasn't earned a rest, even though her familiar weather
forecast will be sorely missed in a State that takes more than our fair
share of beatings from Mother Nature.
I thank you for the chance to honor Diane Deaton. I thank you for the
chance to honor Diane Deaton for all of her hard work on behalf of
everyone who relies on WAFB-TV for news and for everyone in Louisiana
and Baton Rouge whom her volunteer work has touched--and that numbers
in the hundreds of thousands.
Diane, may the years ahead bring as much joy to you as you have
brought to our State and our community. God bless you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas

National Defense Authorization Act

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, for many years, I have supported the
annual National Defense Authorization Act. The bill always contains
many worthy provisions, and it usually passes with large majorities.
After all, who wants to vote no when the common refrain to pass the
bill is ``Support the troops''? But at some point you have to draw the
line, and this year is where I draw it.
Just look at these bills over the last few years. Five years ago, the
NDAA was 968 pages--not unusual around here and something you can get
your hands around. But last year, the NDAA report was 1,794 pages, and
this year the report is an astonishing 4,517 pages--not even counting
the classified annexes. I doubt anyone really knows what is in it
except maybe some lobbyists.
And get this: As the bill grew more than sixfold in length, we had
even less time to read it. The number of people who could read the bill
at any one time was restricted. Social distancing--``Can't have too
many people in the room,'' we were told. That is fine. I understand. We
are still in a pandemic. But then we should have had more time to
review the bill, not less. Yet Armed Services Committee members were
asked on this floor last week to sign the bill after having only a
couple of hours to review it.
As this massive bill was written in secret and then rushed to a vote,
some seem to have forgotten to consult with the Commander in Chief or
recall that he has veto power. It is pretty well known that the
President wants the bill to reform or repeal section 230, the giveaway
to Big Tech oligarchs who get to censor the American people without
consequence.
The bill stiff-arms the President. There is not a word in more than
4,500 pages about section 230. The sponsors claim they couldn't airdrop
provisions into the bill at the last minute. I take the point. I am not
sure the President will, though, and he is the one with the veto.
But there is more. The bill condemns the President for proposing to
move some troops out of Germany and restricts his ability to do so,
even though NATO's frontier has shifted hundreds of miles to the east
and Germany hasn't exactly carried its share of the NATO load. The
Senate didn't debate this major policy change. Our earlier bill didn't
even mention it. As far as I am concerned, this provision was, to
borrow a phrase, airdropped without appropriate consultation with
committee members. And for the record, I am a senior member of the
committee, but I only learned about this provision in the newspaper on
Friday, 2 days after I was asked to sign the bill.
It would appear the standard for airdropping provisions into the bill
is that we won't airdrop things that support the President's
priorities, but we will airdrop stuff that thwarts his priorities. I
doubt that will get past the President's veto either.
This failure to consult committee members is not an isolated
incident. The President's 5G plan released valuable but unused spectrum
owned by the government. The Pentagon protested mightily but only with
vague evidence. We had a hearing on this issue, and it sharply divided
committee members. Yet, again, this bill disrupts the President's plan,
and, again, we learned about it only after the fact.
Another thing that happens behind closed doors is broken promises. We
were promised last summer that the radical Warren amendment wouldn't
survive the conference committee. Not only did it survive; not a single
word was changed.
You may have heard about the Warren amendment. You probably heard
that it would merely rename some Army bases that are named after
Confederate officers. There is no harm in having that debate. I have
always found it curious that we don't have a base named after say U.S.
Grant or John Pershing.
Yet the Warren amendment is far more radical than merely renaming a
few bases. The amendment explicitly applies to all military property.
That is a lot more than bases. It includes military museums, service
academies, and cemeteries. Do you think I am exaggerating? I am not.
Read the bill: no exceptions for museums, for academies, even for
cemeteries.
Let me give you just one example. The West Point library contains
portraits of Grant and Lee in close proximity, two commanders of the
Civil War, juxtaposed as today's cadets learn the history of our
Nation, our Army, and their own school. But that painting may have to
come down. So I suppose tomorrow's cadets may learn that Grant defeated
an unnamed enemy with an unnamed commander and accepted surrender from
no one at Appomattox.
But if you really want to see the radical consequence of the Warren
amendment, just look across the river to Arlington National Cemetery,
our Nation's most sacred ground. Those gardens of stone stretch in
symmetrical rows across the horizon, except for a single odd section
laid out in circles, rather than rows, and with pointed headstones,
rather than rounded ones. The 482 graves in Section 16 contain the
remains of Americans who rebelled against our country. That section
also contains a memorial to those who died in that rebellion.

We should be grateful that those rebels and their cause lost on the
battlefield. Yet we should also be mindful of the historical context of
this patch of our most sacred ground. Section 16 of Arlington was
created as a symbol not of secession but of reconciliation by the very
men who had fought for the Union.
President William McKinley--a decorated veteran of the Union Army,
promoted three times for battlefield valor--oversaw its creation. In a
display of magnanimity, he declared--in

[[Page S7301]]

front of the Georgia legislature, of all places--that the Federal
Government would assume responsibility for Confederate graves. He then
signed a bill authorizing the reinterment of Confederate soldiers at
Arlington.
Senator Warren apparently believes that she knows better how to
handle the legacy of our Civil War than did the Union veterans who bled
and defeated the Confederacy on the field of battle, or even Barack
Obama, who continued a longstanding Presidential tradition in 2009 of
sending a wreath to the Confederate section of Arlington on Memorial
Day.
If the professor gets her way, a crane may drive into Arlington and
rip out the memorial whose history dates back to President McKinley and
which was honored just a few years ago by President Obama. Again, I am
not exaggerating. In the committee markup, Senator Warren said that is
exactly what she wants to happen. And if that happens, maybe the
professor will be applauded in faculty lounges, but my perspective is a
little different.
I served at Arlington with the Old Guard. My soldiers and I laid to
rest our Nation's heroes. A lot of those funerals started in Section
16. Before those funerals started, we talked sometimes about that odd
section and the war that occasioned it. After all, the Army has a lot
of amateur Civil War historians. We were proud to wear the uniform of
and be the heirs to Grant and Sherman and Sheridan--the great warriors
who saved the Union and vindicated freedom and equality for all.
We also had a little humility. We didn't presume that we knew better
than Grant and McKinley how to heal our Nation's wounds after the Civil
War, or that we knew better than Abraham Lincoln, who called for
``malice toward none, with charity for all.''
Maybe Senator Warren and the Jacobins in our streets repudiate the
wisdom of Lincoln and Grant and McKinley. Perhaps they think Lincoln
should be canceled. A mob tried to tear down his statue just a few
blocks from here last summer. Too many of these Jacobins condemn our
Nation as racist to its core. They look at the Confederacy and see not
a rebellion against America but the true heart of America. So,
naturally, their iconoclasm doesn't stop with tearing down statues of
Lee but moves right away to statues of Washington, Lincoln, and Grant.
They tried to tear down those last summer, too, if you recall.
I will never stand by while Jacobins tear down statues of Washington,
Lincoln, and Grant, nor will I support a bill that permits a crane to
drive into Arlington and desecrate that sacred ground. We celebrate the
triumph of the Union and the cause of freedom and equality and the
defeat of the Confederacy, but why does it follow that we have to rip
paintings off the walls of libraries and museums and tear down war
memorials in Arlington National Cemetery?
And I suspect a lot of other Senators wouldn't support this bill
either if they knew what it does. And that takes me back to a larger
problem. We were promised this radical language wouldn't be part of the
final bill, but that promise was discarded behind closed doors. Now, we
have a 4,500-page bill at the last minute in the rush to fund the
government and pass another coronavirus relief bill before the
holidays, all with the Presidential veto hanging over it.
An overlong bill negotiated behind closed doors, dropped at the last
minute, major policy shifts without consensus or even much debate,
broken promises, wishful thinking about a veto threat--these are the
hallmarks of an NDAA process that has deteriorated rapidly in recent
years. That has to change. If it doesn't change this month, mark my
words, it will change next year.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Tribute to Doug Jones

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, sadly, I return to the floor today to say
farewell to another Member who will conclude his time in the Senate at
the end of the term, the junior Senator from Alabama, Doug Jones.
We all know Doug came to the Senate as a storied courtroom lawyer and
U.S. attorney, but fewer people know about his more humble origins.
Doug was born and raised in Fairfield, AL, just outside of Birmingham,
the son of a steelworker, the grandson of a coal miner. When he was 19
years old, he spent his summer working at the local cotton tie mill, 10
hours a day, 6 days a week.
One day, a freak accident sent a bit of shrapnel flying his way, and
he came within inches of losing an eye. Several stitches later, Doug
went right back to work--early evidence of a stubborn streak. Only at
the end of the summer did Doug decide it was time to focus a bit more
on his studies.
That same work ethic--the sometimes stubborn work ethic--followed him
his entire life. He brought it next to law school. On the one occasion
Doug decided to skip class, it wasn't to throw a pigskin around the
quad or engage in some extracurricular activity with friends. No, Doug
skipped class to attend the trial of the Klansman ringleader of the
1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church, a tragedy that had
shaken the conscience of a nation.
A young Doug Jones was moved by the disposition of justice in that
trial, but he was left with the impression that other members of the
conspiracy had escaped the reach of the law. Only a scriptwriter could
have imagined that 24 years later, that law school truant would become
the U.S. attorney in Alabama and that his office would uncover the
evidence to bring charges against two more Klan members involved in the
bombing, and that 40 years after that awful crime, Doug Jones would win
the conviction of the remaining conspirators, delivering a long-delayed
yet righteous justice.
History would repeat itself a few years later, when Doug would again
find himself at the center of events. Doug was eating breakfast one day
just blocks away from the scene of the bombing of the All Women Health
Clinic. He took charge that day and made sure that investigators and
first responders worked together in perfect unison. Doug would later go
on to secure the indictment of Eric Rudolph, the perpetrator of that
heinous bombing, as well as the Olympic Park bombing 2 years later.
Of course, not every one of Doug's cases involved matters of life and
death. The U.S. attorney's office once prosecuted local officials for
trying to steal an election by bribing absentee voters with cash, beer,
and a little liquor for good measure. Now, if only the defendants had
known about Doug's affinity for bourbon.
Kidding aside, kidding aside, those years revealed for Doug something
profound about public service and government: You can have the best
laws in the world in principle, but it takes dedicated effort to make
the law work for everyone in practice, to take our ideals of justice
and equality and fairness and opportunity and make them real in the
everyday lives of citizens.
Doug brought that revelation with him to this Chamber. He worked with
his trademark determination to finally repeal the widow's tax. He
helped pass legislation to permanently fund historically Black colleges
and universities. He has worked across the aisle to combat veteran
suicide, strengthen the VA, and support our military bases--so
important to the great State of Alabama.
Not every issue would be so easy or so bipartisan, especially for a
new Senator facing a difficult reelection, but every time Doug
approached a politically sensitive vote--and I marveled at this--he was
untroubled. He would do what he always did: He would act on principle.
He would vote his conscience--politics be damned. President Kennedy had
a phrase for Senators whose abiding loyalty to their conscience
triumphed over all personal and political considerations. He called
them profiles in courage. Doug Jones is a profile in courage for our
times.
But before I get carried away with too many grand compliments, it is
important to remind colleagues that Doug Jones, as a human being, is
just a joy to be around. Just ask his good friend, the Senator from
Montana. More than once Doug would catch Senator Tester giving an
impassioned

[[Page S7302]]

speech on the floor and think to himself: I will bet you he didn't turn
his phone off. Let me give him a ring and see what happens.
(Laughter.)
Just look at Doug's office, festooned with memorabilia of every
particular: Crimson Tide footballs and keepsakes from his favorite
bands. You can go see his rocking chair--one of those southern-veranda,
sweet-tea-drinking chairs--and baseballs signed by Presidents,
statesmen, and most impressively to this Yankee fan, Joe DiMaggio.
If Doug Jones has one hobby besides hunting, it is autograph hunting.
He has managed to collect a signature on a baseball from every Senator
in this Chamber today, including its newest Member. The junior Senator
from Arizona was sworn in only a week ago, but 5 seconds after he
lifted his hand from that Bible, there was Doug to congratulate him,
furnishing a clean baseball, ready for Mr. Kelly's John Hancock.
That is Doug Jones--someone who never let the immense pressure of
this job change who he is, someone who has made life a joy for everyone
in our caucus, and someone who understands that, at the end of the day,
we get sent to this Chamber to make life better for our constituents,
to do it courageously even when the odds are not in our favor.
I will end with one final story. Several years ago, Doug was asked to
participate in a stage adaptation of his favorite work of fiction, ``To
Kill a Mockingbird,'' which, of course, includes his literary icon,
another great Alabama lawyer, Atticus Finch.
Hearing Doug's life story, you would be forgiven for thinking it was
ripped from the pages of that Harper Lee classic, so perhaps it was
fate that one day Doug would be asked to play a part in that story.
There was just one hiccup: Doug was asked to play the judge. So he
never got to deliver that passage, shortly after the death of Mrs.
Dubose, when Atticus explains to his son that real courage is not a man
with a gun in his hand; ``[real courage is] when you know you're licked
before you begin, but you begin anyway and see it through no matter
what. You rarely win, but sometimes''--sometimes--``you do.''
Doug spent his time in the Senate--indeed, his whole life--embodying
the courage that Atticus describes. The story of the 16th Street
bombings is a reminder of the fact that even against tremendous evil
and seemingly impossible odds, if you are dogged and determined and see
it through no matter what, sometimes you do win and justice prevails.
So while Doug didn't get to play Atticus Finch that weekend at the
Virginia Samford Theater in Birmingham, that is OK. It was already the
role of his lifetime.
Doug has said that it is the greatest honor of his life to fill the
seat of his mentor, Senator Howell Heflin.
Doug, you upheld the honor of that seat, and you have set an example
for every Senator who will follow in it.
Whatever the next chapter of your life may bring, the entire Senate
Democratic family wishes you and your family the very, very best and
politely requests that you do not call us when we are in the middle of
giving a speech.
(Laughter.)
I yield to my friend, the very distinguished and wonderful,
wonderful, wonderful junior Senator from the great State of Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama

Farewell to the Senate

Mr. JONES. Mr. President, I thank the minority leader for those
remarks. I am humbled.
You know, everyone knows the old saying ``My, how time flies when you
are having fun.'' My time here has drawn to a close, but despite the
difficulties, the challenges, despite the rancor that we often see in
this body, as well as Washington, DC, I can honestly say I have had a
lot of fun. The last 3 years have been amazing, and I have loved being
a Member of this body.
I actually was able to accomplish a few things, thanks to you. But
you have been fun; you have not just been kind. It has really been
good.
By the way, your staffs have been awesome. I know you hear that a lot
from constituents. Maybe you don't hear it enough from other Senators.
Your staffs have been amazing to us, and I really very much appreciate
it.
You know, as the minority leader said, everybody knows I am a
baseball fan. If you go into that office, you will see in my reception
area all 100 baseballs that I had signed. And it was fun getting them--
either here on the floor or in a committee room, at the retreat that
the Democrats had. There were so many who had never signed a baseball,
and you figured out that it wasn't easy to sign a baseball.
(Laughter.)
And even those who signed in their office, when we sent them to their
office, they always came up and talked about it. It was a time to put
politics aside and just talk a little bit--something we really don't do
enough of around here, leaving the weighty politics and
responsibilities that we have just to sign a baseball and talk about
how much fun it was.
I remember, right after I was elected, I was talking to a friend of
mine, dreaming big about the things that we could accomplish that would
make a difference in the lives of the people of Alabama and the people
of America. We talked about the possibility that we could work on a
bill as important as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights
Act of 1965. But I knew--I knew, though--that such opportunities were
not likely, especially in what I knew to be a 3-year window and not
knowing what the future would hold--although, I have got to be honest,
I had a pretty doggone good idea when I got here.
If there was one thing my momma always taught me, it was to be
realistic about things. I knew it was going to be tough, but to even
have an opportunity to talk and work on things that bring such
transformational changes--those kind of things come along once in a
generation, if we are lucky. They are that legislative equivalent of a
perfect game in baseball. You are lucky if you get to be part of that
in your career, but you always have to hope and you have to strive for
the possible, not just the likely.
For those of you who really don't know about baseball--there may be a
few--a perfect game is just that: nine innings, three outs, three up,
three down. Everything has to work together in synchrony. It is not
just the pitcher who throws balls and strikes; it is the outfielder who
catches the fly; it is the second baseman who has to get the out and
throw the runner out at first. Everyone has to fall in line and work
together as a team--as a team. And it is not just that; it is the
people on the field. They are all working and they are all striving for
the same goal. As it turned out, I didn't get a chance to be part of a
perfect game. I didn't think I would, but I didn't get that chance.
Sometimes I worry, as many of you do--especially if you listened to
the farewell speeches of Lamar Alexander and Tom Udall and Mike Enzi
and others--you worry if those perfect games can ever be had in this
Senate again. I worry about that. But we always come close, and I came
close.
Right after I got here, I got invited to be part of the Common Sense
Caucus, which I had to explain to people in Alabama that that is really
not an oxymoron, that there is common sense up here.
But within 6 weeks of being up here, I was at Susan Collins' office
with so many here--some 20 Senators, Republican, Democratic--talking
about immigration, working on immigration reform. It was the hottest
topic of the day, an important topic that is still important today. I
just marveled at the fact that here I was, 6 weeks into this, and I was
in that room being a part of those discussions.
What was even more astonishing to me is that people actually wanted
to hear what I had to say. That didn't happen, having raised three
children, been married. I don't always get that, when people want to
know what you have got to say. But they did, and I was so gratified,
and I was so honored.
We would meet in Senator Collins' office. We would meet in hideaways.
It was exciting. And we came so close. You all remember that? We came
so close, within about three votes of doing what they said couldn't be
done, of doing something that was possible but not probable.

That sense, what I saw of my colleagues, is why we ran for the
Senate.

[[Page S7303]]

I could see it. I could feel it in those rooms, in those discussions. I
could see it on the floor that day as people were voting. It is why we
wanted to be in this body.
I remember sitting in the cloakroom, and I was as disappointed as
ever when we failed. And for a long time, probably still to this day,
when I am asked ``What is your most disappointing day in the Senate?''
I will always talk about that vote that failed so close, which was so
important. But what it did demonstrate is, through that effort--
effort--that anything is possible. You have got to come close sometimes
before you get across the finish line. You have got to play in the red
zone a little bit before you get the touchdown. You have got to hit
that line.
But whatever we did, it is possible. The Senate is capable of great
things, if we do them, of bridging divides that society may view as too
wide to cross. We can do that. It is not that wide between here and
there. It is not that wide, and people need to know it and respect it.
I am not the first and I certainly will not be the last to talk about
the importance of bringing people together who hold opposing views and
working toward what is both possible and palatable. But all too often
the desire to do that kind of gets lost among other actions that don't
quite match the words that we say.
I noticed the other day how many heads were nodding in the farewell
speech of Senator Alexander, Senator Enzi, and Senator Udall. And then
what happens? I have looked at a lot of farewell speeches in the last
month. They all say a lot of the same things, and everybody, I am sure,
nods.
We have got to do better. You have to do better. I don't think I
fully appreciated it. And I listened to the minority leader talk about
where I come from in Fairfield, but I don't think I fully appreciated
it until fairly recently. It seems like I just kind of love a lost
cause. It seems like every time that there is something that needs me
there, I am there--fighting for justice for others, for others who feel
like hope is lost, from the church bombing case to a Senate election in
Alabama. I fought for those causes because I believe in hope. I believe
in redemption. I believe in the possibility. Some may call that naive,
and many have, but I have not been afraid to touch on the so-called
``third rail'' issues of our political system because I believe that,
right now especially, there is no time for caution.
My first speech on the Senate floor was about gun violence. No one
could believe a Senator from Alabama actually talked about how we can
stop gun violence in a way that made some sense--not from an extreme
view on the right or an extreme view on the left but right there in
ways that made sense.
It was a topic that I knew could have easily been twisted into a
negative campaign ad--which, by the way, it was.
(Laughter.)
We saw it coming. But I also knew action was so important. We took
some small steps on that issue over the last 3 years, despite a lot of
political pressure to the contrary, and I hope you will do more in the
years ahead because lives will depend on it.
Everything doesn't have to be a perfect game. There is great
satisfaction in the day-to-day triumphs. You can and we did hit a home
run or two and more than our share of singles and doubles. I am really
proud of the 20-plus bills that I led or co-led, bipartisan bills, that
have been signed into law over the last 3 years. None would have been
possible without bipartisan work.

One of my first original bills, the Civil Rights Cold Case Records
Collection Act would never have become law without the commitment of
Senator Cruz to help bring long-overdue closure to the victims of those
terrible crimes.
I see Ted in the back. I appreciate Senator Cruz's involvement in
that. I will have to say, it was so much fun, after we got that done,
to go back home and tell that to all my Democratic friends. What is
your proudest? I said: Well, the proudest moment right now is with my
partner, Ted Cruz. They said: Aha.
But it shows what is possible, folks. And it was an important bill.
None of those bills have meant more to me, though, than the bipartisan
effort that I led with Senator Collins to eliminate the military
widow's tax that for almost two decades had deprived widows of full
survivors' benefits that they deserved.
So many of you went to bat for that bill: Senator Reed, Senator
Inhofe, and others. You were getting a lot of pressure, not from me or
Susan Collins. You were getting pressure from a lot of those military
widows. They had been up here for 20 years, and for 20 years the
dollars and cents had prevented that from becoming a reality. We fought
on that because we knew what we were doing was right. We knew it was
right that you could not put a price on the duty we owe to the men and
women of our armed services and their families.
I will never forget that day in December when we passed the NDAA that
included the elimination of the widow's tax. In the Gallery, there was
a large group of Gold Star widows who had been up here for 20-plus
years to try to get that done, never being able to reach the goal. And
on that day, we did it. You did it. Susan and I got a lot of credit,
but it was this body, with the help of some folks in the House, that
made it happen. That was just one of the memorable days on the floor.
Swearing-in day was unbelievable--simply an explosion of emotions. To
walk on the floor as a U.S. Senator, some 37 years after I left the
floor with my old boss as a young staffer to my mentor Howell Heflin,
and to take the oath of office for his seat was just really a
remarkable circle of life.
There are two especially significant things about that day too. One
is that I hope that you all recognize by now that the freshman class of
2018 will likely go down in history as one of the greatest freshman
classes ever. The team of Smith and Jones can't be beat. It is as
American as apple pie. I was really proud and honored to be there with
Tina Smith that day.
I was also honored, if you recall, that there were three Vice
Presidents on the floor of the Senate that day. Now President-Elect Joe
Biden escorted me in. Former Vice President Walter Mondale escorted
Senator Smith. Mike Pence, the current Vice President, swore us in.
And, actually, if you now think about it, we had a fourth--soon-to-be
Vice President Kamala Harris. That is a pretty remarkable time--pretty
remarkable.
It was also a remarkable day when what I hope is going to be a new
tradition in the Senate took place: When we had on two different
occasions, once each year, six Senators--three Democrats and three
Republicans--reading Dr. King's ``Letter from a Birmingham Jail.'' That
document remains one of the most significant in American history, and
it is as important today as it was when it was written in 1963--and, in
some ways, maybe more important for the moment we find ourselves in. I
have asked--and I know he will do this--my colleague Senator Brown to
carry on that tradition in my absence.
And then there was the day of the swearing-in in January of 2019. I
was here to observe, to pay my respects to all those who were returning
and for those who were joining. And as I was standing in the back by
the cloakroom, Senator Tester walks up and says: Jones, what are you
doing?
You can't get anything past Tester. There were probably a few
profanities ladened in there as well, if you know Senator Tester.
I said: Well, Jon, what do you think I am doing--with probably a
couple of other kind of milder profanities.
He said: Look, Daines is caught in a snowstorm back home and can't
make it here, and I would like for you to escort me down when I take
the oath.
As it turns out, it is likely to be the only time I get to do that--
and it was a true honor, my friend.
Simply sitting at this desk is perhaps the greatest thing, taking
this place in and watching each of you, noting the bipartisanship,
especially as we close the Congress--especially as we close this
Congress--and how Senators move freely from one side of the aisle to
the other. Occasionally, I will tell you, I confess, that I just come
back here by myself, and I will open this drawer and will read the
names of the Senators who sat here: John Kennedy, Ed Muskie, Hubert
Humphrey, my colleague Senator Shelby, and so many others. And it is
just overwhelming.

[[Page S7304]]

You know, growing up, it was always the Presidents or Presidential
candidates who captured my attention. I knew the names of some
Senators, but that began to change for me watching the Senate Select
Committee on Watergate when I was in college. It was a remarkable time
and a remarkable committee. And then everything changed again in 1979
while I was studying for the bar and got a phone call from Senator
Heflin's chief of staff, Mike House. I had campaigned for the judge.
Mike offered me a 1-year position on Heflin's Judiciary subcommittee,
which I eagerly took. That year not only changed my life but brought
about a respect for this body, for the Senate--as an institution, as
individuals, and for so many of its Members--that I had never had
before. From that point on, folks, I was hooked. I was hooked on this
body--before being elected to the Senate. And now I have come to love
the Senate a lot and, importantly, all of the possibilities that go
with it, which is why I don't really want to spend my last moments on
the floor talking about what I have done. I want to talk about what
needs to be done, what can be done, what is possible.
You know, even back in 2017, people said it was just not possible to
elect a Democrat from Alabama to the U.S. Senate--and here I have been.
It is possible to make affordable quality healthcare a reality for
all Americans. The ACA right now is the best hope and only plan that is
out there. As President Obama said--and everybody should do this--if
there is a better plan you can come up with, put it out there. Let's do
it. I will publicly support it.
The goal is healthcare for everyone in some way. There are so many in
this country and in my State of Alabama who desperately need it--
before, during, and after this COVID crisis. It is possible to give
people in remote and rural areas access to healthcare, but it is going
to take a lot of work, and it is going to take getting out of partisan
corners.

It is possible to provide a quality education to every American
child. I know education is often funded locally, but it is possible to
do it. You just have to roll up your shirt sleeves and get it done.
It is possible to extend broadband--access to broadband--to all
Americans and bring every man, woman, and child into the modern era,
just like we did--the Congress did--with Franklin Roosevelt in the
Rural Electrification Act in the 1930s. Broadband is the new power. It
is possible to do that. High speed and affordable, that is key--
affordable broadband.
It is possible to ease the burdens on working-class Americans by
setting a minimum wage that is not going to hamstring businesses but
will raise the quality of living for so many in this country. So many
in my State are in poverty, but yet they work. They work. They work
hard, but yet they are still below that poverty level. We need to do
what we can to lift them out of that poverty. It takes a lot of work.
It takes hard work.
It is possible for law enforcement to serve and protect all
Americans--not just some--to root out the systemic racism that exists
within law enforcement by enlisting the support of both law enforcement
and the communities. It is possible.
I will candidly tell you another great disappointment was when we let
that moment pass this summer--hoping that with a new President, maybe a
new Senate, maybe a new Congress, we could get something accomplished.
I hope that that still happens, but I was disappointed we let that
moment pass this summer when all of the country and all of the world
was behind us to say: Please do something. Please do something that we
have known about for decades, for centuries. Please do something.
Law enforcement said: Let's do something.
We let it pass. But it is never too late to do the right thing. It is
never too late for justice.
It is possible to ensure that every eligible voter is able to cast a
ballot and have it counted. Now is the most important opportunity we
have seen in 2020--concerns about our election process; that it might
have been stolen; that there might have been fraud. Use that
opportunity to say: Let's don't let these allegations have any credence
going forward. Let's get together. The technology is there.
Figure out a way that together we can make our election safe and
secure and that all people will have access to the ballot box--all
people who are eligible to vote in this country.
It is possible for our system of justice to treat all Americans
equally--not just talk about it, but to do it. It is what I have tried
to do throughout my career. It is possible.
And this is going to be a challenge. It is possible to restore the
American people's faith in government. And we all know right now that
that faith has been shaken for many, many reasons. The faith has been
shaken, but it is possible to restore it. It is possible for each of us
to learn--as Atticus Finch taught us--to see things from another
person's point of view, to walk around in their skin or in their shoes,
to see things from other's point of view, to find that common ground.
It is possible for us to realize that deep down that progress is not
a zero-sum game, that a rising tide lifts all boats.
These things are not easy. They take dedication and hard choices, but
they are worthy goals. I know many of my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle are dedicated to the same goals, and though I won't be able
to cosponsor anything with you from this point on or debate the
amendments in committee--if you get amendments in committee--I am going
to support you in whatever efforts I can, no matter what side of the
aisle your desk is on. And I will keep working toward the same goals
too, even after I leave this place.
Remember, though, as we get into the vitriol, as we get into
political rhetoric--just remember the Jones law of politics, adapted
from Newton's third law. Just remember that for every action, even in
politics, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you go too far on
one side or the other, you are going to get a reaction on the other
side, just as hard. And that makes it harder and harder to reach that
common ground.
You know, in Senator Brown's book about his desk and the people in
his desk, he quotes the political philosopher Hannah Arendt who
observed: ``The good things in history are usually of very short
duration, but afterwards have a decisive but a short time of
influence''--a long influence--``over what happens over long periods of
time.''
A short time--and I know you may be thinking, well, Doug was only
here 3 years; so that is what he is talking about. But I am not. In
history, I am looking at something bigger--whether it was Martha
McSally's 2 years or my 3; Senator Gardner's 6; Senator Udall's 12;
Senator Alexander's 18; or Enzi's and Roberts' 24; or, if you are like
Pat Leahy, since Moses was in the bulrushes.
Our time here is short. There is not anybody on this floor right now
who is not thinking about their time since they were sworn in and said
that it was just like yesterday, because it was. Our time is short. It
is of a limited duration, and we have to act like that. We have to make
sure that every day we are moving.
It has been a realization of a long-held dream. I have so many to
thank: Doug Turner, who is here; Joe Trippi, on my campaigns; and my
late friend, Giles Perkins; and an amazing family: my bride Louise, my
rock; my two boys, Carson and Christopher, who have wanted to kill both
me and Louise since they have been living at home during the pandemic.
They have been incredibly supportive. And then my daughter Courtney and
her husband Rip and her two beautiful girls, my granddaughters, who are
still the brightest stars in my sky, Ever and Ollie.

I am grateful to each of you, my colleagues, and all that you helped
me with.
I am grateful to an amazing staff. I am not going to go all the way
through it. They have been true rock stars. I am going to enter
something into the Record about my staff.
I am grateful for the advice and counsel of Alabama's senior Senator
and an old friend, Senator Shelby. While Richard and I may disagree on
many policies, we share a commitment to the people of Alabama to make
sure that we do all we can to get the people in Alabama the quality of
life that

[[Page S7305]]

they deserve, and I so much appreciate Richard's service to the people
of the State of Alabama, his long and distinguished service--which
started out as a Democrat, by the way, just saying. That is where the
seed was planted, folks.
I also want to mention briefly the chairmen of the committees I
worked on: Senator Crapo, Senator Inhofe, Senator Alexander--who was
one of the first people who helped me come over--and the work that we
did together. You pulled me and helped me. Senator Collins, who chaired
the Aging Committee.
But I am especially grateful for the ranking members of those
committees: Senators Brown, Casey, Murray, and Reed. Their friendship
and counsel have been invaluable.
Of course, I want to thank the minority leader for all of his work
for me and on behalf of me. And as I think you guys know--not always
the people of Alabama--Senator Schumer never tried to put puppet
strings on me. I know I got accused of that, but he never ever tried
and, for that, I am very grateful.
To the people of Alabama, I promised to do my best to represent each
of you, whether or not you voted for me, and I am proud of the work
that we did on your behalf and that I have accomplished on your behalf.
Thank you to the people for giving me the honor of serving you as your
Senator.
Finally, I am going to resist the urge to tell you what is wrong with
the Senate, how it operates today. You hear it virtually every time a
Senator gives a farewell address, and, instinctively, you know it deep
down. But I will offer you this. There is a book I finished reading
recently that Ira Shapiro, a former staffer, wrote. Many of you may
remember or know Ira. He wrote a book called ``The Last Great Senate.''
It ought to be required reading for every Senator coming in. It was
published 8 years ago, about the two Congresses during the Carter
administration and how they operated--Bob Byrd as majority leader,
Howard Baker as the minority leader, how they got things done for the
American people. The author laments that the Senate doesn't operate
today in that fashion. I was here for one of those years. Senator Leahy
was here during that time.
His closing is even more important today as it was when the book was
published. He said:

America is adrift in turbulent and dangerous waters. Facing
enormous challenges at home and abroad, we urgently need our
once-vaunted political system to function at its best,
instead of at its worst. To be sure, it is more difficult
being a senator today than it was in the 1960's and 1970's.
The increasingly vitriolic political culture, fueled by a
twenty-four-hour news cycle, the endless pressure to raise
money, the proliferation of lobbyists and demanding,
organized interests are all well known, and they take a toll.
But all of those factors make it more essential that our
country has a Senate of men and women who bring wisdom,
judgment, experience, and independence to their work, along
with an understanding that the Senate must be able to take a
collective action in the national interest.

Please remember that as you go about the country's business; remember
that as you go about the Senate's business; remember that as you go
about your business as a Senator. And as you do, keep and preserve the
reverence that the Founders envisioned for this body. As former
Majority Leader Mike Mansfield once said, ``The constitutional
authority . . . does not lie with the leadership. It lies with all of
us, individually, collectively, and equally. . . . In the end, it is
not the Senators as individuals who are of fundamental importance. . .
. In the end, it is the institution of the Senate. It is the Senate
itself as one of the foundations of the Constitution. It is the Senate
as one of the rocks of the Republic.''
Something we should all remember.
One more little bit of advice. Take out the word ``negotiation'' when
you are talking about legislation. Don't talk about negotiating this
bill or that bill, whether it is COVID relief or even appropriations.
It works, but let me tell you what is happening out there, what is
happening out there with the people. They hear those words, and they
think this is some side or the other trying to get an advantage. It is
like labor and unions. It is like a civil or criminal lawsuit. Somebody
is trying to get an advantage to try to do things for their own
interests.
We can talk about it from the Democratic side of how we are working
for the people; we are negotiating for the people. We can talk about it
from the Republican side; that we are negotiating for patriotism and
businesses to make sure they are protected. But what is being heard by
the American people is this is all about Democrats; this is all about
Republicans and getting that political power.
Talk about common ground. Talk about sitting down with the
administration or whomever and finding common ground. Talk about the
goals that you agree on and how to get there. ``Negotiation'' is just a
bad word, and I hate that, but it is.
As I prepare for the next chapter of my life's journey, there is a
sadness of what I am going to leave behind, but there is also
optimism--optimism, the glass half full, the men and women who serve in
this body and their successors and the staff who support them. And I
emphasize that, again, the staff who support them. Leading together
will continue to bring a better future for the American people, for
your constituents, for each of us together, not as a caucus but
together as a Senate.
You are just a damn, unbeatable team. You are an unbeatable team.
May God bless you all. May God continue to bless the United States of
America.
Mr. President, with a deep sense of humility and gratitude, I say for
the last time, I yield the floor.
(Applause, Senators rising.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. What a good speech here. We don't hear them like that
every day.
To my colleague Senator Jones, 3 years was not a long time here, but
we feel his presence. I can tell you that I have known Doug a long
time. I remember I came to the U.S. House when he came up to work in
the Senate for Senator Heflin in the Judiciary Committee and so forth.
I supported him when he was nominated by President Clinton to be the
U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Alabama, where he did a
tremendous job. I worked with him day after day, as we all do, on a lot
of issues that affected the country but affected, especially, our State
of Alabama at times, and we worked hand in glove.
We have become friends. We have our differences, but we also have a
lot of things that he talked about today where we would come together
for the State and for the country.
I wish him well. I think we will hear more from him in the weeks
ahead, in the months ahead. I certainly hope so. He has a lot to give.
He has a great family. He has a great wife in Louise and a great
partner there.
He has a great staff and we worked together and we will continue to
do this.
But one theme--and I like that he kept expounding on it here today--
that if we work together in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, we
get things done; if not, things don't happen.
I wish Senator Jones Godspeed and wish him the best
Mr. President, today I would like to speak about my fellow Alabama
colleague and friend, Senator Doug Jones.
I have known Doug Jones since he was a young staffer working for
Senator Howell Heflin on the Senate Judiciary Committee. During his 3
years as a Member in the Senate, I believe we have worked well
together.
He and his staff have shown a lot of professionalism and class while
in Washington. He is respected by all of his colleagues on both sides
of the aisle.
While we may not agree on every policy, Doug understands the Senate
and respects the institution. It has been an honor to serve with him.
Annette and I have enjoyed spending time with Doug and Louise, and we
wish them all the best.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. I am going to be very, very short.
The truth is that serving with Doug Jones has been a once-in-a-
lifetime opportunity for me. This guy's last name shouldn't be Jones;
it should be ``Justice.'' He is somebody like nobody I

[[Page S7306]]

have ever seen, whose moral compass is so tuned into right that it has
just been an incredible pleasure for me to be able to serve with him
and to know him and to also wish him the best moving forward.
I don't think we have heard the last of Doug Jones. Doug is not the
kind of person who will shrink away. There will be another moment where
he can exhibit his ability of common sense, as he has done here in the
U.S. Senate for the last 3 years.
I am deeply going to miss his friendship and his ability to sort the
wheat from the chaff because he has been able to do that from day one
and continued today with his farewell speech.
I just want to say, God bless you, Doug Jones, and God bless your
family.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I heard a lot about Doug Jones before
he got here from another courageous former U.S. attorney, Hal Hardin
from Nashville. I was not disappointed when he arrived.
Doug Jones reminds me of another former Democrat who was very
effective in the Senate, Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy would come on the
floor and make the most--well, no one could ever say he abandoned his
principles, based upon his speeches. He would stand back there in the
back, and the things he would say would rally any Republican Lincoln
Day Dinner. In fact, all I had to do back in Tennessee to stir up the
Republican crowd was to mention Ted Kennedy. I did that on a regular
basis.
However, when I made my maiden address, without my knowing it, Ted
Kennedy went around and got 20 cosponsors for the legislation I
introduced that day, and I got a good dose of what it means to be an
effective U.S. Senator, somebody who sticks to his or her opinions but,
at the same time, who knows we are here to try to work on some sticky
issues and get a result that most of us can vote for and that the
country can accept.
In his time here, Doug Jones did that. I got to watch him because he
was a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
Senator Kennedy used to chair that committee, working with Senator
Enzi, Senator Gregg, Senator Hatch, and others to produce a lot of
legislation. He used to say that committee has one-third of all the
jurisdiction in the Senate. Maybe that is about right.
Doug Jones was one of the newest Senators. We have 23 members. He was
way down at the end of the line, but I noticed he always came and he
always asked questions and he always listened. He seemed to me to be
trying to say what he believed but learn from the witnesses how to get
a result.
Let me just mention one contribution he made that I think will stick
with him and with the people of Alabama and this country for a long
time. That was the work we did in 2019. Senator Murray and I, Doug
Jones, Senator Tim Scott, Senator Bennet of Colorado were on it from
the beginning to do two things at once that helped low-income Americans
who wanted to go to college.
The first was to simplify the dreaded FAFSA, the Federal Aid
application form that 20 million Americans fill out every year that is
108 questions long. About 90 of them are unnecessary; everybody agrees.
For years, we have been working on that to try to simplify it. Finally,
we got a significant part of that done.
Doug Jones played a major role in that because what that legislation
did was to say to the low-income family in Alabama or Tennessee or
Arkansas or Illinois--wherever--you don't have to send your tax
information into the Federal Government twice and let them then see if
they can catch you making a mistake and hold up your Pell grant for 2
months while you figure that out. All you have to do is check a box,
and the Internal Revenue Service will fill out the tax questions on
your Pell grant application for you so that there is no chance of
making a mistake. That made a big difference. And at the very same
time, we agreed--Republicans and Democrats--to permanently fund
historically Black colleges. It was a goal that had been there for a
long time.

So I would say to my friend from Alabama that I hope he puts that on
his wall somewhere because that helps a few hundred thousand low-income
families in Alabama alone. There is some work still to be done on that
to finish the job, to finish the FAFSA simplification, and there may be
some other support for historically Black colleges that we might even
be able to get done while you and I are still here.
Yet I wanted to acknowledge a Senator who arrived, went to work,
stuck to his principles, worked across the aisle, and got results. You
can't have a much better scorecard than that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I also rise to acknowledge my dear, dear
friend Doug, but I do it in a different vein. So many good things have
been said, and I think anyone who knows Doug or who has paid attention
to what has been said today had found it has been very accurate as far
as his having a commitment to the rule of law and his compassion for
any person, especially for those who haven't had the same opportunities
as all of us have had in life. That is what has moved us all. Yet I
have gotten to see him in a different light.
He and Louise invited me down. I got to campaign with them, and it
was all about Alabama. I got to go down and spend a couple of days.
That tells you of the true person. It not only tells you what he
believes and what he feels for the people of his State and how he
represents them, but it truly tells us what the people of his State
think of him. I saw it firsthand. I saw it at a football game. Now,
Nick Saban and I grew up together in a small, little coal mining
community.
I want you to know that Coach Saban and Terry, his wife, send their
best. They want to thank you for your service.
To see the fans gather around Doug and to see the happiness that he
and Louise had when we were just out, going through the tailgates, was
a wonderful, wonderful sight. That tells me everything about his
purpose for being here. I hope those in Alabama know how truly
fortunate they are to have this gentleman, who loves Alabama with every
fiber and bone in his body. He has given them everything he has and has
represented their State better than any State I have ever seen
represented with the true passion that he has.
I love you, buddy. Thank you
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have had the privilege of serving with
many, many Senators of both parties and with very many whom I have
applauded. Some stand out specially--some for their longevity and some
for who they are. Doug Jones stands out for who he is.
I think, in listening to his work as a prosecutor--of course, that is
near and dear to my heart in my having been a prosecutor--I had never
faced what he had. I think of his discussion of the summation he gave
in the trial of the people involved with the bombing of the church in
Alabama and the killing and maiming of youngsters. In fact, I had a
chance to meet one of the survivors of that with Doug, and I saw how
she had felt about him all these years later because he had had the
courage to stand up and do something that may not have been popular
with some in his State, but that had been the right thing to do. In all
of the years I have known him here, what he has done has been the right
thing to do.
Now, I have only had one objection about him. He showed me a picture
that was taken when this young man, Doug Jones, was working for Howell
Heflin--Judge Heflin, as I recall. They were standing there with these
gray beards, and this Senator from Vermont asked: Who is the youngster
in the picture?
Senator Jones, thank you for bringing that. I know Ann Berry, in my
office, got a kick out of that because she had the opportunity to work
with you.
We have done things that we have been able to joke about, like being
in an airplane, where he was sitting in the front and I was sitting in
the back. Fortunately, it was on the ground. Senator Jones hollered out
to somebody, one of the military people there: Where is the button for
the ejection seat for the back?
It caught my attention.

[[Page S7307]]

I have also seen this man sit there and try to discuss legislation.
He would ask: How will that help people? I don't want this because it
is politically beneficial to me. How will it help people?
I have heard about towns now in Alabama that I had never heard about.
I have also heard things he would tell me about that would make me
think of towns in Vermont and make me realize we were talking about the
same problems. Never once would he say: These are Republicans or these
are Democrats. He would say: These are people in Alabama who need help.
So we would work on that.
I will speak further about this, but, Senator Jones, I think of you
and your wonderful family. I think of the trips you and your wife and
my wife and I have taken together, and I feel that I have been a better
Senator for knowing you and traveling with you and listening to you. I
will miss you, my friend, and I will speak further on this.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there is something about this Doug Jones.
From the earliest stages in his life, he knew he was going to be a
little bit different.
When I grew up in East St. Louis, IL, it was expected that my
childhood hero would be St. Louis Cardinals great Stan ``the Man''
Musial. But when you grew up in Fairfield, AL--also a baseball fan as a
boy--it turned out that your childhood heroes included Joe DiMaggio,
Roger Maris, and Mickey Mantle. I am not sure how that goes over in the
Deep South, to say that you are rooting for a team called the Yankees.
But you did it, and you knew from the start, in your youth, that you
were willing to strike out and do the radical, controversial thing.
You were 9 years old in September 1963 when four members of the Ku
Klux Klan bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church in nearby Birmingham,
killing four innocent, young girls who were not much older than you
were. Fourteen years later, you were an idealistic, young law student
who skipped class to sit in on the trial of the ringleader of that
church bombing. You were mesmerized when listening to Alabama's then-
attorney general--the lead prosecutor in the case--tell the jury: ``It
is never too late for justice.'' The jury agreed and convicted the
bomber.
You would go on to marry Louise, and God blessed you with three
beautiful children--two sons and a daughter. Yet the memories of those
four little girls who were killed in their church never left you.
In his eulogy for the four fallen girls, Dr. Martin Luther King said
that the girls ``say to each of us, Black and White alike, that we must
substitute courage for caution. They say to us that we must be
concerned not merely about who murdered them but about the system, the
way of life, and the philosophy which produced the murderers. Their
deaths say to us that we must work passionately and unrelentingly for
the realization of the American dream.'
I am sure a lot of people heard those words and nodded, but you heard
those words, and you were inspired. In 2001, as the U.S. attorney for
the Northern District of Alabama, you led the successful effort to try
and convict the remaining two coconspirators in the church bombing.
Both men were sentenced to life in prison.
In that same office, you coordinated a joint State-Federal task force
that led to the indictment of domestic terrorist Eric Rudolph. You
advocated that Rudolph should stand trial first in Birmingham for the
deadly bombing in that city of a women's health center before being
tried in Atlanta for the Centennial Olympic Park bombing. All told,
these and other bombings killed 2 people and injured more than 150.
Rudolph pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four life terms in prison
because of your commitment.
I was honored, during the course of the campaign, Doug, to do a joint
fundraiser with you and Louise and Loretta, my wife. I got to sit out
on my deck in Springfield and listen to Jason Isbell and Joe Walsh. It
was a lot of fun that night. Sometimes campaigns are fun. It certainly
was to be with you and Louise on that particular night.
I want to close by saying that you shocked me on the floor of the
Senate with your first speech. I couldn't believe that this new Senator
from the State of Alabama would give a speech about guns and gun
violence. It really told me all I needed to know about you right then
and there. You are willing to stick out your neck for something you
believe in, even if it is going to be controversial and even if you are
going to catch hell for it, because you believe in it sincerely.
I know you are a proud hunter and gun owner, and there is no question
in my mind about your views on that issue. Yet, after the Pulse
nightclub shooting in Orlando, FL, that took the lives of 49 young men
and women--one of the worst mass shootings in the Nation's history--you
supported tighter background checks for gun sales and raising the age
requirement to purchase a semiautomatic weapon.
I want to personally thank you, as well, for showing exceptional
political courage in cosponsoring my DACA legislation in the Dream Act.
I will never forget it.
I am also proud that you were an original cosponsor of Justice in
Policing. That wasn't an easy one either for anybody and for you
especially, but you stood up for what you believed in. That is
legislation that I joined in introducing with our friend Cory Booker
and soon-to-be Vice President Kamala Harris.
So you have left your mark. It may seem like a short time in the
Senate, but there are those who have served for much longer who have a
lot less to show for it. You told us who you were on your first day,
and you proved it every day thereafter. It has been an honor to count
you as a colleague. I know that you are going to continue to find ways
to bend that moral arc of the universe toward justice, and I look
forward to supporting you in every way that I can in that goal. I wish
you the best.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Coronavirus Relief

Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I came to the Senate 2 years ago
because the people of Florida entrusted me to fight against the broken
ways of Washington and the out-of-control spending that is threatening
the future of our children and our grandchildren.
I am fighting every day against the political class in Washington--
the same elites that scoff when people like me say that government
needs to be run like a business. They say government is too complicated
to run like a business, but I say that any elected official or
government bureaucrat who believes that should resign tomorrow because
they are part of the problem.
It is time to wake up. It is time to wake up to the fact that every
dime spent in Washington belongs to American taxpayers, and every
dollar spent now is a tax increase for a future generation.
It is time to wake up to the fact that our Nation is more than $27
trillion in debt. Every cent we spend moving forward threatens our
ability to fund our military and our safety nets like Social Security,
Medicare, and Medicaid.
It is time to wake up to the fact that our position as the leader of
the free world is not promised and shouldn't be taken for granted.
Irresponsible career politicians who care more about their next
election than the future of our country will run this Nation into the
ground if we let them, and I am fighting like hell to make sure they
don't.
Now, let me be clear. I support another relief measure to help our
small businesses and individuals who are hurting because of the
coronavirus.
For months, Senate Republicans have been trying to pass responsible
and targeted measures to quickly help those in need. And for months,
Democrats have blocked these measures because of politics.
Nancy Pelosi admitted it. She said she purposely stood in the way of
the deal until after the Presidential election so that politics would
be in their favor to avoid ``considerations in the legislation that we
don't want.''
It is shameful and exactly why the American people are fed up with
Washington.

[[Page S7308]]

Congress has already allocated $2 trillion in direct and indirect aid
to States and localities. And we know, unfortunately, because Congress
tried to get this money out the door as quickly as possible, many
programs within the CARES Act are riddled with waste, inefficiency, and
fraud.
Now a group of my colleagues want to spend another trillion dollars,
including almost $200 billion to bail out liberal States with Governors
who can't do the basic job they were elected to do--manage their own
budgets. And we don't even know how much is still unspent from the
previous coronavirus relief packages.
I have reached out to every single Governor--twice now--to learn
exactly how they have spent the hundreds of billions of dollars they
have already received, and only 10 have replied. They won't tell us
because they don't want us to know there are still billions of dollars
left unspent. They don't want us to know that the real purpose is to
take taxpayer money meant to help get through this crisis and use it to
backfill their inefficient and wasteful budgets and pension programs.
Liberal Governors and mayors around the country think the American
people are stupid. They think taxpayers in States like Florida won't
realize if the Federal Government uses their taxpayer money to bail out
States like New York and California and pay for those States' wasteful
spending.
Governor Newsom has had his hand out for a bailout despite the fact
that California's tax revenues for this fiscal year are running $9.9
billion or 18.6 percent above projections. Personal income tax revenue
in October was $1 billion--15.6 percent higher than in the previous
October i California, and sales taxes were up 9.2 percent. For the last
4 months, overall revenue in California has exceeded spring forecasts
and even 2019 collections.

This is a State that paid $1.5 million to the chief investment
officer of its public pension fund, who was actively investing in
companies tied to the Chinese Communist Party, only to later find out
this person was personally invested in companies with ties to the
Chinese Communist Party. You can't make this stuff up. How is that for
pension waste and a national security threat?
It is the same story with Governor Cuomo. New York's overall tax
revenue was up 4.3 percent in September compared to September 2019.
These are the same Governors who are OK issuing new stay-at-home
orders that are killing small businesses. As long as they get more
money from the Federal Government to backfill their budgets and pension
plans, they don't care how many people in their States have to suffer.
These Governors and mayors don't care, as long as they don't have to
follow their own oppressive rules.
Let's not forget about Nancy Pelosi and the hair salon, California
Governor Gavin Newsom dining at the French Laundry, Austin Mayor Steve
Adler encouraging constituents to stay home from his timeshare in
Mexico.
Do as I say, not as I do.
These liberal politicians who refuse to open their States or spend
taxpayer money wisely are seeing high numbers of unemployment. Most of
the States with the highest unemployment rate in the country are
controlled by Democrats.
On the other hand, Republican-led States that are making the hard
choices to get on a fiscally responsible path and reopen their economy
safely are succeeding and seeing lower unemployment rates.
Thirty States have halved their unemployment rate since May, while
real GDP grew 33 percent in the third quarter, erasing losses from the
previous quarter. You can see there, this is from a Wall Street Journal
editorial--if you haven't heard, ``states are experiencing a surge of--
tax revenue.'' Politicians don't want this good news to get out because
they want to get more of our money from States like Florida to pay for
the budgets of Illinois, New York, California, and New Jersey. You can
see the GDP growth of 33 percent in that quarter.
Over here you can see States have seen a big drop-off in their
unemployment rates by half over the last 6 months, and there has been a
big growth in private sector employment, but it doesn't stop these
liberal Governors and mayors from wanting more money.
Look, I know everyone wants to help our States, and so do I. We help
our States by ensuring appropriate spending of the billions of dollars
in taxpayer dollars already allocated. We help our States by safely
opening the economy and getting Americans back to work. We help our
States by sending money to schools to safely reopen and funding vaccine
research and distribution.
Most States will be in a strong position to get through this pandemic
without more Federal aid, and that is great news for our country. But
we know New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey don't need bailouts;
they want bailouts so they can use that money intended to address the
fallout from COVID to backfill their longstanding budget problems and
their pension problems.
I have said all along that I will not support that. It is not fair to
the citizens of States like Florida, where over my 8 years as Governor,
we made the hard choices--they were hard--that put our State on a
fiscally secure path. We paid down our State debt. We cut taxes. We
balanced our budget every year without borrowing money.
And $908 billion--$908 billion--of spending today equals a tax
increase of $7,000 per American family down the road. It is not money
that we have. It is a tax increase of $7,000 per American family down
the line.
Many families in our country right now are trying to figure out how
to celebrate this holiday season while they struggle to afford daily
expenses. These are people we need to be helping.
You wouldn't run your business or family the way Washington is run--
like there is an endless supply and no consequences to racking up
unthinkable amounts of debt. That is what many of my colleagues want.
But to keep spending money like this means taking away the same
opportunities that I have had and others have had to live the American
dream, and it will take it away from our children and our
grandchildren.
It is time to wake up. It is time to make the hard choices to put our
Nation on a path to recovery--recovery from this virus, from the
economic devastation it has brought with it, and from the fiscal
calamity that decades of politicians have ignored. That includes
refusing to bail out wasteful States for their decades of poor fiscal
choices
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

S.J. Res. 77

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, later today, we will vote on whether to go
forward with the arms sales that the administration notified the
Congress of a few weeks ago. These would be arms sales to the United
Arab Emirates, equipment sales. These sales clearly would continue the
20 years of growth in our relationship, working side by side against
common concerns and common enemies.
This really goes back through three different administrations, going
back to 9/11 and beyond, where the UAE has consistently been willing to
stand with us in at least six long-term deployments. They come; they
stay. They are side by side with us in the field. They have been with
us in the air. They are flying what has previously been our best piece
of aircraft at a level that we would share it with other countries that
are friends of ours.
This sale will continue that. It continues to allow even more
interoperability between the United States and the UAE and Israel.
Israel, by the way, is totally supportive of this sale. The
Ambassador from the United Arab Emirates and the Ambassador from Israel
earlier this week had a public event where they both talked about the
support of Israel for this sale.
As you know very well, our law requires a quantitative advantage for
Israel when we sell them equipment. We have even a slightly different
advantage, but being able to continue this relationship is important.
The F-35 jets, the MQ-9 unarmed aerial vehicles, advanced munitions--
I think the total sale is about $23.5 billion. And this is not any kind
of gift from the United States to the UAE. This is the UAE making a
purchase totaling $23.5 billion for equipment that

[[Page S7309]]

is made by American companies and almost always by American workers.
In August, we had the first breakthrough in a diplomatic sense in the
Middle East in a long time. President Trump deserves credit for that.
Israel deserves credit for that. But the UAE deserves credit for that.
The Abraham accords, where the UAE formally recognized Israel, began to
have flights back and forth and other things that were significant in
changing the environment in the Middle East, the most difficult part of
the world--the greatest breakthrough in 40 years. But that followed a
number of breakthroughs that weren't quite as public, where this
relationship has grown--the Israel relationship with the UAE--just like
our relationship has gotten stronger over time.
To see the recognition of the two governments together, to see
Bahrain follow that--I think we are going to see other countries in the
area decide that a region that lives in peace with Israel is a good
thing for everybody involved, not a bad thing for anybody. So it is
important.
I think how the Congress deals with this is significant. We have been
notified as the law requires us to be notified. Under this notification
process, I don't believe any sale has been denied, and only one sale
has been altered.
The President has to agree. So if we debate this for hours and
somehow it narrowly passes and the President vetoes it and we don't
have the votes to override the veto, which I am confident we would not
have--in fact, I think we very likely have the votes to go ahead and
deal with this right here, right now. It is the right thing to do. It
is the right time to do it. We will never have more of a long-term
runway of how things under the Bush administration, the Obama
administration, and the Trump administration have continued to progress
to where the UAE has become a trusted ally.
Now, they have become a trusted ally and a trusted diplomatic partner
in this important breakthrough. Having this kind of equipment not only
allows us to be interoperable, but frankly, it creates the
opportunities for American military and American technicians to be
working with them every time you have an upgrade, every time you have a
significant maintenance issue. That just further enhances, as does
working through how that equipment is used afterwards--all of that
further enhances the constant dialogue, the constant reinforcement of
our friends who see common enemies and are working directly to move
their country and their region in a much better direction.
I hope that the Senate today does what it needs to do and sends that
message that we understand what Israel would like to see happen, what
the UAE would like to see happen, and, frankly, what will happen and
happens better if this debate focuses more on what that outcome
produces, rather than a debate that makes people wonder exactly what do
you have to do to continue to be a trusted partner of the United
States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I would restate my request, whenever I come
to the floor, that the Presiding Officer wear a mask because he has
people sitting in front of him that could be at risk.

Remembering Paul Sarbanes

Mr. President, this weekend, we lost a former Member of this body who
truly embodied the spirit of service that should animate all of our
work. His name is Paul Sarbanes. He passed away a few days ago. He was
a longtime chair of the committee of the Presiding Officer.
As chair of the Banking and Housing Committee, he was always a voice
for consumers and working families, standing up against powerful
corporate interests. The accomplishment that bears his name, the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, was a landmark law in our efforts to hold
corporations accountable. It helped protect Americans who invest hard-
earned money for retirement and for their kids' education from
corporate banking fraud, the kind that bankrupted families after
scandals like Enron.
Senator Sarbanes also never ignored the housing part of our
committee's jurisdiction. He fought to make sure that all Americans
could find and afford a place to call home. Whenever developers tried
to make a deal in Maryland, he was always adamant they include
affordable housing in their projects because, fundamentally, he never
forgot where he came from. The son of Greek immigrants, Paul Sarbanes
grew up a working-class kid, bussing tables at his family's restaurant
on the Eastern Shore.
In the Senate, he cared about getting results for the people he
served, not about getting the credit. Some of his colleagues called him
the ``stealth senator.'' He welcomed the nickname. He told the
Baltimore Sun that stealth is ``one of the most important weapons in
our military arsenal. . . . If you let somebody else take the credit,
you can get the result.''
Senator Sarbanes was the definition of a true public servant. May he
rest in peace as he joins his beloved wife Christine. Connie and I pray
for Representative John Sarbanes, his son, and the entire Sarbanes
family.
I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Senator Sarbanes by
building on his legacy, standing up to the corporations that have too
much power in this country, and fighting for the working people we
serve. Paul Sarbanes, like many others in this body, understood the
dignity of work

National Defense Authorization Act

Mr. President, yesterday the House overwhelmingly passed the NDAA
conference report by a veto-proof majority of 335 to 78. That bill
includes our comprehensive bipartisan reform of our anti-money
laundering laws.
I would like to thank my colleagues, especially Senator Crapo and
other Banking and Housing Committee colleagues: Senators Warner, Jones,
Reed, Rounds, and off the committee, Senators Wyden, Whitehouse,
Graham, and Grassley, and the Presiding Officer, Senator Cotton, for
his work on this legislation.
On the House side, Chairwoman Waters and Chairman Maloney and
Representative Cleaver, thank you to all of them for working so hard to
ensure that today we have this crucial bipartisan legislation in this
defense conference report that will reform our money laundering laws
and finally end abuses by anonymous shell companies.
I would like to extend my thanks to a former colleague, Chairman
Levin, who was chair of Armed Services and the Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations and to President Obama, who both voted on these
issues for years. Many of their good ideas are codified in this bill,
harvesting some of the seeds they planted years ago.
The Anti-Money Laundering Act and the Corporate Transparency Act are
the products of months and months of bipartisan negotiations between
and among Members of the House and Senate and certainly the staffs of
Senator Cotton and me and Senator Crapo and others. I thank them for
their good work.
The bill is a critical step to fight money laundering and crack down
on shell companies. While there are things I would have done
differently had we been writing the bill on our own, overall, it is an
effective and comprehensive response to the problem of illicit finance.
I strongly support it.
Criminals abuse the U.S. financial system to launder money from drug
trafficking, organized crime, Medicare and Medicaid fraud, weapons
sales, and other criminal activities. I spoke today about this with
Sheriff Burke of Toledo, the Lucas County Sheriff, a longtime sheriff,
and U.S. Marshal Pete Elliott of Cleveland of the Northern District.
They welcomed this language, and they welcome this law. This will help
them do their jobs better.
Much of this dirty money that comes from organized crime in Medicaid
fraud, weapons sales, drug trafficking, and sex trafficking is
laundered through anonymous shell corporations. These are not
victimless crimes. They directly hurt Ohio communities, especially
those torn apart by the opioid crisis.
Sinaloa cartel actors and Fentanyl traffickers have been destroying
thousands of families. They use money laundering to get their drug
money in and out of the country. Human traffickers who prey on runaways
at truck stops along major interstate highways in Ohio and across the
country also use the financial system to launder their profits. We need
to give law enforcement new modern tools to stop their crimes.

[[Page S7310]]

The bill finally requires comprehensive reporting by U.S. companies
of their actual owners--no more hiding these abuses in anonymous shell
companies. It cracks down on bankers who look the other way to actively
aid money laundering and cracks down on Big Banks that have shoddy
compliance systems. If you are helping drug traders hide their illegal
fentanyl profits, you deserve more than a slap on the wrist. Banks
cannot be too big to jail, and laws can't treat them that way.
I will closely monitor how this critical legislation is being
implemented. I spoke this week already with the Secretary of Treasury
designee and the Deputy Secretary of Treasury designee about being
ready to administer and enforce these laws. I look forward to working
with the administration to ensure that Treasury puts in place effective
anti-money laundering and corporate transparency rules to implement the
bill as soon as possible.
We know that criminals have long been revising their tactics to get
around our current laws. This bill will enable us to get ahead of them
and stay ahead of them.
I urge my colleagues to support it. They supported this language in
the NDAA, and I ask them to support the NDAA
Taken together, as we designed them, these measures reform, update
and strengthen our current anti-money laundering laws and make critical
changes to U.S. corporate disclosure laws to combat abuses by owners of
anonymous shell companies--including foreign owners from China, Russia,
Iran, North Korea and other countries--who have for years been
exploiting our system for criminal purposes.
The legislation strengthens the Treasury Department's financial
intelligence, anti-money laundering (AML), and countering the financing
of terrorism (CFT) programs, modernizing our legal regime and improving
communication, oversight, and information-sharing in these areas.
The conference agreement requires much more routine and systemic
coordination, communication, and feedback among financial institutions,
regulators, and law enforcement, to enable them to identify and act on
suspicious financial activities, better target bank resources on
critical AML tasks, and increase the likelihood of bad actors being
caught by law enforcement.
It also provides for new whistleblower protections for those
reporting BSA violations and provides for payment of whistleblower
rewards.
It establishes tough new penalties on those convicted of serious Bank
Secrecy Act violations, including additional penalties for repeat
violators, and imposes a ban on financial-institution board service for
those convicted of egregious BSA-related crimes.
It would require important new reporting from the Department of
Justice and Treasury to better enable Congress to oversee the use of--
and sometimes continuing violations by banks under--deferred
prosecution agreements and non-prosecution agreements, which too often
are a slap on the wrist by regulators for banks that evade sanctions,
violate our AML rules, or otherwise violate banking laws. As I have
said, banks can't be too big to jail, and regulators can't treat them
that way.
To help accomplish all these goals, the conference agreement
authorizes additional funding for the Treasury Department, and we
expect the Department to insist on strong accountability for results
and to be responsive to congressional oversight as its officials work
to implement this legislation.
In addition, the bill finally requires comprehensive reporting by
U.S. companies of their actual owners. No more hiding in the dark
abuses by anonymous shell companies to commit crimes.
Unlike in most areas of reform and transparency, where the U.S. has
led the way, on this issue of anonymous shell companies we have long
lagged behind other nations, and failed to require uniform and clear
ownership information for firms at the time of their incorporation in
the states.
This information is critical to law enforcement. In the U.S.
investigators often have to spend precious time and resources issuing
subpoenas and chasing down leads--sometimes jumping from anonymous
shell company to anonymous shell company--to secure basic information
about who actually owns a company. That makes no sense. And with this
bill, it will end.
Treasury's National Money Laundering Risk Assessment estimates that
around $300 billion in illicit proceeds from domestic financial crime
is generated annually.
Criminals have for a very long time abused our financial system to
launder funds gained through narcotics trafficking, organized crime,
Medicare and Medicaid fraud, weapons proliferation and other criminal
activities. Much of this dirty money is laundered through anonymous
shell corporations.
Over the years we have heard all about these abuses, from the
``Panama Papers'' to the ``Paradise Papers'' to, more recently this
year, the series of news articles called the ``FinCEN files.''
These exposures of abuses in our system by dedicated journalists and
national and international transparency organizations have highlighted
problems involving human trafficking, drug trafficking, terrorism,
money laundering, fraud, tax evasion, and other crimes involving
illicit finance.
None of these abuses are victimless crimes.
Money laundering for drug cartels has a direct line to the opioid
crisis in Ohio, where Sinaloa cartel actors or fentanyl traffickers
have been destroying thousands of families. Combined with the pandemic,
these drugs have hurt thousands of Ohio families.
Human traffickers who exploit the misery of runaways in truckstops
along major interstate highways in Ohio and across the country use the
financial system to launder their profits.
Medicare fraudsters cost the taxpayers $2.6 billion in one recent
year, according to the HHS Inspector General, and tarnish the
reputation of this lifeline for seniors.
That's why anti-money laundering and corporate transparency laws are
so critical: they protect the integrity of our financial system,
provide critical intelligence to law enforcement to combat crime and
help give victims the tools they need to hold bad actors accountable.
Under Treasury's existing rules, banks are already working to secure
some of this information from accountholders when they open accounts.
And while banks must continue to play a key monitoring role, it's also
important that we finally, after all these years, require companies to
provide basic information on their ownership when they're formed.
The bill contains a strong definition of ``beneficial owner'' which
includes a two-part test covering individuals who, directly or
indirectly, exercise substantial control over an entity or hold or
control an ownership interest in the entity. The definition is clear
that a nominee, intermediary, custodian, or agent acting on behalf of
another individual cannot be the beneficial owner of an entity.
Nominees are not beneficial owners; neither are trustees or attorneys
acting as agents.
The definition is also clear that employees do not qualify as
beneficial owners of an entity unless, apart from their employment
status, they hold an ownership interest in the entity or can exercise
substantial control over the entity such as the ability to transfer
some or all of the entity's assets or earnings to their personal use.
The provision defines ``beneficial owner'' as an individual who
directly or indirectly ``owns or controls not less than 25 percent of
the ownership interests of the entity.'' When applying this part of the
test, FinCEN must consider what to do if no one individual meets the 25
percent minimum, and how that situation may trigger the second part of
the beneficial owner test which requires disclosure of the individuals
who exercise ``substantial control over the entity.''
To determine whether an individual exercises ``substantial control''
over an entity, FinCEN is not intended to devise a numerical, narrow,
or rigid test. Instead, the standard is intended to function with
flexibility to take into account the myriad ways that an individual may
exercise control over an entity while holding minimal or even no formal
ownership interest.
They include written and unwritten agreements, arrangements, or
understandings, instructions to company directors or officers, letter
of wishes,

[[Page S7311]]

control over personnel decisions, economic pressure on company
shareholders or employees, coercion, bribery, threats of bodily harm,
and other legal and illegal means of exercising control.
Evidence that one or more individuals are exercising substantial
control over a specific entity is expected to vary widely and may
encompass such matters as emailed or telephoned instructions from the
individuals suspected of being beneficial owners or their agents,
employment or personnel decisions made at the direction or with the
approval of such individuals, financial accounts that name such
individuals as signatories, investment decisions made at the direction
or recommendation of such individuals, or transfers of funds or assets
to or at the direction of such individuals.
Requiring companies to provide their ownership information and
storing it in a secure federal database like FinCEN's, alongside
account holders' banking information, will help address longstanding
problems for U.S. law enforcement.
It will help them investigate and prosecute cases involving
terrorism, weapons proliferation, drug trafficking, money laundering,
Medicare and Medicaid fraud, human trafficking, and other crimes. And
it will provide ready access to this information under long-established
and effective privacy rules.
Without these reforms, criminals, terrorists and even rogue nations
could continue to use layer upon layer of shell companies to disguise
and launder illicit funds. That makes it harder to hold bad actors
accountable, and puts us all at risk.
The bill also contains certain exemptions. The basic justification
behind the bill's exemptions is that each exempt category refers to
entities that already disclose their beneficial owners to the
government in one way or another and so don't need to duplicate that
disclosure in the FinCEN database.
For example, publicly traded companies already disclose their true
owners to the SEC, and banks already disclose their true owners to
federal bank regulators; there is no reason to require those entities
to disclose the same information to FinCEN. Each of the exemptions
should be interpreted as narrowly as possible to exclude entities that
do not disclose their beneficial owners to the government.
Exemptions created for pooled investment vehicles, dormant companies,
and certain nonprofits require especially narrow interpretations to
limit those exemptions to entities that provide some level of ownership
disclosure to the government.
The exemption for pooled investment vehicles is intended to be
available only to PIVs that rely for investment advice and services on
a regulated bank or on a securities broker-dealer, investment company,
or investment adviser that is registered with the SEC, has disclosed
its own beneficial ownership information to the federal government, and
has filed a Form ADV disclosing the PIV's legal name and any other
information related to the PIV that the federal government may require.
In addition, PIVs formed under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction
must file with FinCEN a certification identifying every individual that
exercises substantial control over the PIV, providing the same
information required for beneficial owners.
Because evidence shows that criminals, fraudsters, and U.S.
adversaries are increasingly using PIVs to launder funds and commit
other wrongdoing, this exemption is of special concern and should be
subject to continuous, careful review by Treasury as provided in the
new 31 U.S.C. 5336(i) to see whether it should be retained or removed.
The exemption for dormant companies is intended to function solely as
a grandfathering provision that exempts from disclosure only those
dormant companies in existence prior to the bill's enactment; those
grandfathered entities are also required to immediately disclose their
beneficial owners to FinCEN as soon as their ownership changes hands,
they become active entities, or they otherwise lose their exempt
status. No entity created after the date of enactment of the bill is
intended to qualify for exemption as a dormant company.
The exemption provided to certain charitable and nonprofit entities
also merits narrow construction and careful review in light of past
evidence of wrongdoers misusing charities, foundations, and other
nonprofit entities to launder funds and advance criminal and civil
misconduct. This exemption is intended to apply only to entities that
are engaged in charitable or nonprofit activities, and not to entities
engaged in for-profit businesses or for-profit activities.
The exemption is based, in part, upon provisions in U.S. and state
laws that enable federal and state officials to regulate and
investigate nonprofit organizations to ensure, for example, that the
individuals behind them are not using the entity's assets to
inappropriately enrich themselves, unfairly compete against businesses
that pay taxes, or advance other inappropriate objectives.
In addition, the exemption given to entities that ``operate
exclusively to provide financial assistance to or hold governance
rights over'' a charitable entity is intended to be even more
restrictive; it is confined to entities that qualify as U.S. persons
under U.S. tax law, have only U.S. citizens or residents as their
beneficial owners, and derive ``at least a majority'' of their funds
from U.S. persons--meaning the exemption is not available under any
circumstance for entities formed under foreign laws, established for
foreign beneficial owners, or funded primarily with foreign funds.
Again, these exemptions are intended to be narrowly interpreted to
prevent their use by entities that otherwise fail to disclose their
beneficial owners to the federal government.
To ensure the bill's exemptions function as intended, the Treasury,
FinCEN, OCC, IRS, SEC, CFTC, and other federal regulators should review
and, if necessary, strengthen their filing forms to ensure that
beneficial as well as nominal owners are disclosed to the federal
government by the specified exempt entities, including investment
companies, investment advisers, pooled investment vehicles, money
transmitting businesses, and all entities registered with the SEC,
among others.
The justification for the exemption of entities that have both
physical operations and at least 20 employees in the United States is
that those entities' physical U.S. presence will make it easy for U.S.
law enforcement to discover those entities' true owners. Like other
exemptions in the bill, this exemption should be narrowly construed to
exclude entities that do not have an easily located physical presence
in the United States, do not have multiple employees physically present
on an ongoing basis in the United States, or use strategies that make
it difficult for U.S. law enforcement to contact their workforce or
discover the names of their beneficial owners. This exemption should be
subject to continuous, careful review by Treasury under the new 31
U.S.C. 5336(i) to detect and prevent its misuse.
Extending the disclosure exemption to subsidiaries whose ownership
interests are owned or controlled by one or more of certain identified
exempt entities is, again, intended to be interpreted as narrowly as
possible to exclude subsidiaries that never disclose their true owners
to the federal government.
The exemption is intended to apply only to subsidiaries that are
wholly owned or controlled by one or more of the exempt categories of
entities; that's why the provision does not contain any reference to
the 25% ownership figure that appears in the definition of beneficial
owner.
The Federal Reserve, Treasury, OCC, SEC, CFTC, FDIC, and other
federal regulators should review their filing requirements to ensure
that the entities that report to them, such as banks, publicly traded
corporations, securities dealers, exchange operators, or commodity
brokers, include requirements to disclose the subsidiaries they wholly
own or control. This exemption, like others, should be subject to
continuous, careful review by Treasury under the new 31 U.S.C. 5336(i)
to detect and prevent its misuse.
For their part, FinCEN identifiers are intended to simplify
beneficial ownership disclosures by eliminating spelling and naming
issues that can cause confusion or mistakes related to the precise
individuals or entities in an ownership chain.

[[Page S7312]]

FinCEN should design rules that will encourage both individuals and
entities to obtain and use FinCEN identifiers in their beneficial
ownership disclosures. When assigning FinCEN identifiers to entities,
FinCEN should first ensure that the entity has already disclosed its
beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. An entity that has not
disclosed its beneficial ownership information to FinCEN does not
qualify and should not be granted a FinCEN identifier.
It is critical that, from the beginning, FinCEN issue rules that
ensure only one identifying number is assigned to each individual and
to each entity, including all successors to a specific entity. FinCEN
should also establish mechanisms to detect and correct any procedure or
database field that may lead to the same individual or entity
possessing or using more than one FinCEN identifier.
Chairman Crapo and I agreed two years ago that we must get this done
in this Congress--we must finally enact sweeping legislation to require
complete ownership information--not of front men and women, not of
those forming companies on behalf of those who will pull the strings
from behind the curtain--but of the actual owners of companies to be
available to appropriate law enforcement, intelligence and national
security officials in our government who need it to combat crime.
This bill lays out a system to do that simply, efficiently and
effectively, without unduly burdening small businesses or others, and
while providing extensive protections for the information. In Europe,
that information is included in a public database. This approach is
different, imposing some limits on who will have access, and under what
circumstances.
For example, it provides that federal agency heads or their
designees--and agencies can extend that delegation as far down in their
organizational chain as they like--can provide access to the database
to appropriate law enforcement authorities once per investigation, so
they do not need to keep repeating that authorization for the same
investigation. And those delegations can be made on a bulk basis, so
groups or classes of employees can be authorized to access the data as
needed.
For State, local or tribal law enforcement, they must get approval by
a tribal, local, or state court of competent jurisdiction, which need
not be a judge--it can include an officer of the court like a
magistrate, court clerk or other administrative officer.
While I saw no reason to treat federal, state and local law
enforcement officials differently, my Republican colleagues insisted on
this differential treatment, and I am hopeful that the flexibility we
have built in should make it workable.
It is far more workable than the scheme some had pushed, to require
approval by a federal judge each time law enforcement wanted to access
the database--an approach which would have gutted the bill, tied up our
federal courts, and effectively rendered it inaccessible to state and
local law enforcement. But the key here is a robust, functional and
effective database at FinCEN to house this information and make it
readily available.
FinCEN should take immediate steps to create the new database needed
to contain beneficial ownership information. It should use state of the
art technology, procedures, and safeguards to ensure the database is
secure, easy to search, easy to audit, and easy to correct and update.
FinCEN should use its new hiring authority to hire the information
technology specialists needed to create the new beneficial ownership
database. In designing the database, FinCEN should survey other
beneficial ownership databases to determine their best features and
design, and create a structure that secures the data as required by
law. FinCEN should ensure that federal, state, local, and tribal law
enforcement can access the beneficial ownership database without
excessive delays or red tape in a manner modeled after its existing
systems providing law enforcement access to databases containing
currency transaction and suspicious activity report information.
FinCEN should allow federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement
to access the beneficial ownership data for both criminal and civil
purposes, including law enforcement activities designed to combat
terrorism, money laundering, trafficking, corruption, evasion of
sanctions, noncompliance with tax law, fraud, counterfeit goods, market
manipulation, insider trading, consumer abuse, cybercrime, election
interference, and other types of criminal and civil wrongdoing.
FinCEN should also provide appropriate access to beneficial ownership
data for foreign law enforcement requesting the information for
criminal or civil purposes, including appropriate requests made by a
prosecutor, judge, foreign central authority, or competent authority in
a foreign jurisdiction, keeping in mind that U.S. law enforcement will
be seeking similar information from those same foreign law enforcement
agencies on a reciprocal basis. FinCEN should endeavor to design a
system that will provide appropriate beneficial ownership information
to foreign law enforcement without excessive delays or red tape.
As part of its implementation effort, FinCEN should take immediate
steps to work with states and Indian Tribes to determine how to confirm
that all covered entities formed or administered by those states or
tribes actually file and update the beneficial ownership information
required by law.
We expect FinCEN to include any resulting procedures or audits in the
rule implementing the law. FinCEN should also include appropriate
provisions in the implementing rule requiring federal, state, and
tribal agencies to cooperate with its efforts to ensure an accurate,
complete, and highly useful database of beneficial information and to
provide notice of the law's beneficial ownership transparency
obligations, as required by the new law.
The Treasury IG should take immediate steps to establish a process to
accept, store, and analyze information provided by a federal, state,
local or tribal agency, foreign government, financial institution,
reporting company, civil society group, the public, or others in the
form of comments or complaints related to how FinCEN provides
notification of the law's beneficial ownership transparency
requirements, how FinCEN collects and stores beneficial ownership
information, or regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of
the information in the FinCEN beneficial ownership database.
As part of that process, the Treasury IG should establish procedures
that will enable comments or complaints identifying false, out-of-date,
or incomplete beneficial ownership information in the database or
providing correct, up-to-date, or complete beneficial ownership
information in the database promptly to reach the FinCEN personnel
charged with ensuring the database's accuracy, completeness, and
timeliness. In addition, the Treasury IG should establish a procedure
to conduct periodic audits to determine the extent to which such
information actually reached the proper FinCEN personnel, was logged,
stored, and analyzed, led to changes in the database, and actually
improved the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of the beneficial
ownership database.
In response to the bill, the Administrator for Federal Procurement
Policy should take immediate steps to revise the Federal Acquisition
Regulation to require covered federal contractors and subcontractors,
at an early stage in the federal procurement process, to disclose to
the federal government in writing, and to update over time, information
on their beneficial owners.
To carry out this provision in the law, the Administrator should work
with the General Services Administration to add a beneficial ownership
disclosure requirement to the database authorizing entities to bid on
federal contracts.
At the same time it is developing regulations to implement the new
law, FinCEN should simultaneously revise the existing customer due
diligence rule to bring it into harmony with the new law and all
proposed regulations. In doing so, FinCEN should carefully evaluate the
existing customer due diligence rule and preserve provisions that do
not conflict with the new law. Among other changes, the revised
customer due diligence rule must use the new definition of beneficial
owner established in the law. Treasury and

[[Page S7313]]

FinCEN should create a transition period for financial institutions to
implement the new beneficial ownership requirements. Lastly, FinCEN
should also take steps to establish procedures as needed to administer
the revised customer due diligence rule effectively.
Updating and strengthening our AML and beneficial ownership laws will
give us a 21st century system to combat these crimes. I guarantee you
criminals have long been revising, adjusting and amending their tactics
to circumvent our current laws. We must get ahead of them, and stay
ahead of them. This bill will enable us to do that.
I urge my colleagues to support the conference report and this
important measure.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

____________________