June 18, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 113 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S3075-S3091]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following 
nomination.
  The clerk will report the nomination.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Justin 
Reed Walker, of Kentucky, to be United States Circuit Judge for the 
District of Columbia Circuit.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition Of The Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                                  DACA

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I cried tears of joy a few minutes ago 
when I heard the decision of the Supreme Court on DACA. These wonderful 
DACA kids and their families have a huge burden lifted off their 
shoulders. They don't have to worry about being deported. They can do 
their jobs, and I believe--I do believe this--someday, someday soon, 
they will be American citizens.
  I have met so many of these beautiful children and their families. 
Now, many have grown up. They came to America as little kids, and all 
they want to be is Americans. They worked hard. I met some of them 
during the COVID crisis in New York risking their lives to deal with 
the healthcare crisis we had. I have seen them enlist in the Armed 
Forces and go to college, some of our best colleges and law schools, 
and climb that American ladder that has been around for so many years 
and some people want to rip away.
  So this is a wonderful, wonderful day for the DACA kids, for their 
families, and for the American Dream.
  We have always believed in immigration in America. We have had some 
dark forces oppose it in recent years, but we believe in it. It is part 
of our soul. Every one of us cares about immigrants, and so many of us 
are descendants of immigrants. Wow, what a decision.
  Let me say this: In these very difficult times, the Supreme Court 
provided a bright ray of sunshine this week with the decision on Monday 
preventing discrimination in employment against the LGBTQ community and 
now with this DACA decision. Frankly, to me, the Court's decision was 
surprising but welcome. It gives you some faith that the laws and rules 
and mores of this country can be upheld. Wow, the decision is amazing. 
I am so happy for these kids and their families. I feel for them, and I 
think all of America does. Again, I cannot--who would have thought the 
Supreme Court would have so many good decisions in one week? Who would 
have thought it? Wow.


                        Justice in Policing Act

  Madam President, now let's get to some other very important issues as 
well.
  Two weeks ago, House and Senate Democrats introduced a bill, the 
Justice in Policing Act, to bring sweeping change to the Nation's 
police departments. The bill would bring comprehensive and enduring 
reforms--the most forceful set of changes to policing in decades.
  The House Judiciary Committee approved the legislation yesterday, and 
it will pass the full House next week.
  Here in the Senate, Republicans put forward their own proposal 
yesterday, led by the Senator from South Carolina. We welcome our 
Republican colleagues to this discussion. It is something they have 
resisted for so long. But merely writing the bill--any bill--is not 
good enough at this moment in American history. It is too low a bar.
  To simply say ``We will write any old bill, and that is good enough'' 
isn't good enough for so many people, many of whom are marching in the 
streets to get real justice.
  We don't need just any bill right now. We need a strong bill. We 
don't need some bipartisan talks. We need to save Black lives and bring 
long-overdue reforms to institutions that have resisted them. The harsh 
fact is that the legislation my Republican friends have put together is 
far too weak and will be ineffective at rooting out this problem.
  The Republican bill does nothing to reform the legal standards that 
shield police from convictions for violating Americans' constitutional 
rights. It does nothing on qualified immunity, which shields even 
police who are guilty of violating civil rights from being sued for 
civil damages. The Republican bill does nothing to encourage 
independent investigations of police departments that have patterns and 
practices that violate the Constitution. The Republican bill does 
nothing to reform the use of force standard, nothing on racial 
profiling, nothing on limiting the transfer of military equipment to 
local police departments.
  What the Republican bill does propose does not go far enough. Unlike 
the Justice in Policing Act, which bans no-knock warrants in Federal 
drug cases, the Republican bill requires data only on no-knock 
warrants. Breonna Taylor, a first responder in Louisville, KY, was 
asleep in her bed when she was killed by police who had a no-knock 
warrant. More data would not have saved Breonna Taylor's life.
  Unlike the Justice in Policing Act, which bans choke holds and other 
tactics that have killed Black Americans, the Republican bill purports 
to ban choke holds only by withholding funding from departments that 
don't voluntarily ban them themselves--only those choke holds that 
restrict air flow but not those choke holds that resist blood to flow 
to the brain--and the ban only applies unless the ``use of deadly 
force'' is required. Who determines when the use of deadly force is 
required? It is usually the police themselves, and courts defer to 
their judgment.
  I don't understand. If you want to ban choke holds and other brutal 
tactics that have killed Black Americans in police custody, why don't 
you just ban them?
  I like my friend from South Carolina, Senator Scott. I know he is 
trying to do the right thing, but this is not just about doing any 
bill. This is not about finding the lowest common denominator between 
the two parties and then moving on. This is about bringing sorely 
needed change to police departments across the country, stopping the 
killing of African Americans at the hands of police, and bringing 
accountability and transparency to police officers and departments that 
are guilty of misconduct.
  Unfortunately, the Republican bill doesn't go nearly far enough on 
prevention. It doesn't go nearly far enough on transparency and hardly 
brings even one ounce of accountability, and that matters a great deal. 
We have to get this right.
  If we pass a bill that is ineffective, the killings continue, and 
police departments resist change, and there is no accountability, the 
wound in our society will not close. It will widen.
  This is not about making an effort and dipping our toes into the 
waters of reform. This is about solving a problem that is taking the 
lives of Black Americans.
  Let me say that again because it is so important for my colleagues 
across the aisle to hear. This is not just about making an effort or 
dipping our toes into the waters of reform. This is about solving a 
problem that is taking the lives of Black Americans.
  If the bill would not have prevented the deaths of George Floyd, 
Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Michael Brown, or Eric Garner, if it 
will not stop future deaths of Black Americans at the hands of the very 
people who are meant to protect and serve, then it does not represent 
the change we need now.
  As drafted, the Republican bill does not rise to the moment. The 
Democratic bill, the Justice in Policing Act, does


                    Nomination of Justin Reed Walker

  Madam President, of course, while Democrats are glad that Leader 
McConnell felt the pressure and heeded our call to put policing reform 
on the floor next week, it will not be before the Republican leader 
asks us to confirm two more hard rightwing judges to the Federal bench.
  Today, the Senate will vote on Justin Walker, a 38-year-old with less 
than a

[[Page S3076]]

year's worth of experience as a district court judge, to sit on the 
second highest court in the country for the rest of his life. The 
temerity of doing that--he was on the court for just a few months, but 
he is friends with Leader McConnell, so he gets rushed to this very 
high court without the necessary experience and maturity of judgment.
  The Republican Senate approved his nomination to the district court 
on October 24 last year, after the ABA rated him ``not qualified.'' 
Now, 8 months later, Leader McConnell wants to give Justin Walker, a 
former intern of his, a promotion to the DC Circuit.
  Even in his extremely limited time as a jurist, Walker made news by 
calling the Supreme Court's decision to uphold our healthcare law 
``catastrophic'' and ``an indefensible decision.''
  I would like Leader McConnell to go home to Kentucky and tell the 
citizens of Kentucky why he nominated someone who wants to repeal our 
healthcare law when the COVID crisis is hurting people there as it is 
everywhere else. In the middle of a national healthcare crisis, the 
Republican Senate majority is poised to confirm a judge who opposes our 
country's healthcare law.
  There is no reason to do this nomination now. There is no stunning 
number of vacancies on the DC Circuit. We are in the middle of a global 
pandemic and a national conversation about racial justice and police 
reform. This is about the Republican leader and his relentless pursuit 
of a rightwing judiciary.
  Usually my friends on the other side of the aisle vote in lockstep on 
these judges, so it is an indication of Mr. Walker's caliber, or lack 
thereof, that at least one Senate Republican has announced opposition 
to his nomination.
  After Mr. Walker--again, before we move to policing reform--Leader 
McConnell will put forward the nomination of Mr. Cory Wilson to the 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Even by the very low standards of Trump's nominees to the Federal 
bench, Mr. Wilson is appalling. He called our Nation's healthcare law 
``illegitimate'' and ``perverse'' and advocated the repeal of Roe v. 
Wade. Worse still, Mr. Wilson strongly supported restrictive voting 
measures, including voter ID laws and is opposed, in this day and age, 
to minority voting rights.
  There will be a massive split screen in the Senate next week. As we 
prepare to debate legislation to reduce racial bias and discrimination 
in law enforcement, Senate Republicans will push a judge who has a 
history of fighting against minority voting rights. The hypocrisy is 
glaring. It is amazing to me--the temerity sometimes that the majority 
leader shows in talking about trying to bring racial justice and 
putting on the bench someone who has fought against racial justice in 
terms of voting rights throughout his career. Again, the hypocrisy is 
glaring.


                                 China

  Madam President, now on China, my colleagues know how long I have 
pressed administrations of both parties to be tougher on China's 
rapacious economic policies. For a time, I even praised our current 
President for talking about going after China's trade abuses, but, as 
on so many other issues, President Trump talks a big game and then 
completely folds.
  After a few months of negotiation, President Trump announced his 
phase one trade deal with China, which lifted tariffs on Chinese 
imports in exchange for a few short-term agricultural purchases. It was 
clear at the time that President Trump sold out.
  I argued strenuously with the Trade Representative, Mr. Lighthizer, 
about the phase one deal. And now, as excerpts of Mr. Bolton's book 
hits the press, we see why President Trump caved to China so completely
  The President's former National Security Advisor wrote that President 
Trump decided to drop all of our major demands on China because he 
wanted agricultural purchases from States that would aid his 
reelection. Mr. Bolton alleges that the President wanted the support of 
farmers in key States, so he sold out the national interest for his 
personal political interest. Does it sound familiar, my Senate 
Republican colleagues? Does it sound familiar?
  Ironically, of course, American farmers aren't even getting the 
benefit because President Xi has reneged on purchasing American 
soybeans and wheat. When President Trump was so craven as to bring this 
up, it was a signal to Xi: You can stand strong, and the President will 
not do anything--will not do anything. And that is what happened, so no 
one won. American manufacturing and American jobs lost out in a weak-
kneed deal with China, and then, even the farmers who were supposed to 
get benefit, of course, for Trump's political interests, didn't get any 
benefit.
  While I would have preferred Mr. Bolton to have told these stories 
under oath at the impeachment trial, they are quite illuminating 
nonetheless. It seems he should have titled his book, ``The Real Heart 
of the Deal.''
  President Trump's failure to secure an end to China's predatory 
intellectual property theft is now explained. President Trump's 
ridiculous praise of how Xi handled the coronavirus is now explained. 
President Trump's silence on human rights abuses and the protests in 
Hong Kong is now explained.
  Even more revolting, Mr. Bolton alleges that the President approved 
of President Xi's plan to place up to 1 million Uighurs into 
concentration camps--possibly the largest internment of religious or 
ethnic groups since World War II.
  China is America's competitor to this generation and the next, and 
this President's insecurity, weakness, vanity, and obsessive self-
interest is a threat--a real threat--to our economic security and our 
national security. President Trump cannot be trusted to deal with China 
policy any longer.


                                  DACA

  Madam President, before I yield the floor, I spoke earlier about the 
DACA decision and how I thought, first, of those wonderful kids and 
their families and the burden that is off their shoulders. But after a 
few minutes, I dialed my dear friend Senator Durbin. He has waged this 
fight since, I believe--2002?
  Mr. DURBIN. 2000.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 2000.
  He has been passionate and unrelenting in fighting for the DACA kids 
and their families. He talks about it in our caucus every week. He did 
just this past week.
  Now, while our work is still not done, we must all work so that these 
kids can eventually become American citizens. At least they are free--
free at last--and, in good part, that is because of the work of the 
senior Senator from Illinois, who met them, got to know them and love 
them, and took his amazing legislative acumen to help them.
  I believe, in part, that the decision across the street occurred 
because of Senator Durbin's effective and unrelenting passionate 
advocacy for the DACA kids
  I yield the floor to my dear friend and a happy man this morning, the 
senior Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to thank my friend and colleague 
from both the House and the Senate, Senator Chuck Schumer, the 
Democratic leader, for his kind words. He has been such a valuable ally 
in this battle.
  As leader on the Senate side, Chuck, I just can't thank you enough.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Dick, the thanks goes to you. The thanks goes to you.
  Mr. DURBIN. Time and again, we did things here that were difficult 
politically--difficult politically--to fight for the young people.
  I just want to thank all of the Senators on both sides of the aisle 
who were a part of moving this issue forward. They did it at great 
political risk.
  I can remember, as sure as I am standing here, watching one of my 
Democratic Senate colleagues walk down and vote for the Dream Act, 
return to her desk in the corner, put her head down and sobbed, 
realizing that she had probably cost her own reelection with that vote. 
Over and over again, people stood up for these young people.
  This morning, minutes ago, the Supreme Court brought a smile and a 
sigh of relief to more than 700,000 young people in the United States 
of America. This morning, the Supreme Court ruled that the September 
2017 rescission of the DACA Program by the Trump administration was to 
be stricken as arbitrary and capricious.
  So what does it mean? It means, for these 700,000 DACA-protected 
individuals, that they can continue to live, to

[[Page S3077]]

work, and to study in America without fear of deportation for the 
moment.
  DACA, of course, is a program created by President Obama in 2012. It 
was a program that was, frankly, our answer to the failure to enact the 
DREAM Act as the law of the land. The President used his Executive 
authority to create the DACA Program, and here is what it said, just 
basically mirroring the standards of the DREAM Act, which I introduced 
20 years ago: If you were brought to America as a child, if you have 
lived in this country, gone to school, don't have a serious problem 
with the law, you should have a chance to live here without fear of 
deportation. The DREAM Act said you should have a chance to become a 
citizen of the United States, which is, of course, our ultimate goal.
  But the DACA Program opened up eligibility, and almost 800,000 came 
forward and applied. They had to pay a filing fee of $500 or $600, go 
through a criminal background check, but for many of these young 
people, it was a turning point in their lives. At that point, finally--
finally--there was a chance they could stay in the country they called 
home, the United States of America.
  They seized that opportunity and did remarkable things. They enlisted 
in our military. They went to schools and colleges to pursue an 
education. They took up jobs as teachers. They finished medical school. 
They did things that were unimaginable for DACA.
  Of course, when the administration changed and a new President came 
in, there was a real question as to whether he would continue the DACA 
Program.
  The very first time I ever spoke to President Donald Trump was the 
day of his inauguration, within an hour or two after he was sworn, at a 
luncheon. What I said to him then--my first words were these: Mr. 
President, I hope you are going to help those young people, those 
Dreamers, those protected by DACA.
  He looked at me, and he said: Senator, don't worry. We will take care 
of those kids.
  Well, sadly, that didn't happen.
  In September of 2017, there was a decision made by this 
administration to eliminate the DACA Program, and at that point, were 
it not for a court challenge and a protective order by the court, those 
young people might have been subject to deportation. But many, myself 
included, believed that the process used by President Trump was flawed, 
and, if challenged, it would fall in court. It took from September 2017 
until today, just minutes ago, when the Supreme Court ruled that the 
administration's approach to eliminating DACA was wrong and would be 
stricken.
  I want to say for a moment who these young people are, because many 
people don't know them. They don't wear badges or uniforms to claim 
that they are DACA-protected, but this is who they are. Of the 700,000, 
200,000 of them are essential employees. You may see them every day in 
many, many callings across America as we face this national health 
emergency.
  Over 40,000 of them are healthcare workers. So if you are a patient 
at a clinic or a hospital today fighting COVID-19 and your doctor or 
nurse just walked in the room with a big smile, it is because the 
Supreme Court said to that healthcare worker or to that healthcare 
hero: You can stay in America. We need you.
  Of course, that could change. I want to raise this issue because it 
is an important one. The Trump administration can decide that they are 
going to reinitiate this effort to rescind DACA and try to do it right 
this time by the Supreme Court standards. That would be a terrible 
tragedy if he made that decision, not just for those 700,000 but for 
their families as well.
  The front page story on the Chicago Tribune this morning was about 
just such a family, both husband and wife protected by DACA, working in 
America, trying to buy a little home in Aurora, IL. She works in a 
cancer clinic. He has a job as well. They have two beautiful little 
kids. They are both DACA-protected. Because of the Supreme Court 
decision, they have another day in America. They have a sigh of relief 
this morning, but what about next week? What will the Trump 
administration do to them next week? I am calling on the President and 
those around him, begging him to give these DACA protectees the rest of 
this year until next year at least before anything is considered. Let's 
protect them now through the election, and let the next President, 
whoever he may be, make a decision.
  I hope before that happens we will do our part in the U.S. Senate, 
the second part of what we can and should be doing, calling on the 
President not to rescind DACA again, not to put these young people and 
their families through this all over again but, secondly, that we do 
our job in the Senate.
  I listened to Senator McConnell earlier, talking about bipartisanship 
and talking about our legislative accomplishments. He is correct that 
the lands bill we passed yesterday was historic. I am glad we did it. 
The coronavirus relief bill we passed is historic. I am certainly glad 
we did it on a bipartisan basis, and I sincerely hope, when it comes to 
Justice in Policing, we can do the same--a bipartisan effort to enact 
good law.
  Let me add to the list, which unfortunately doesn't include a lot of 
legislation, something that is now critically important. The House of 
Representatives, months ago, passed the Dream and Promise Act, which 
would take care of the DACA issue once and for all. We could enact that 
law and say to these young people: Now you have your chance to stay and 
earn your path to citizenship in America. That is what we ought to be 
saying.
  Everyone knows that our immigration laws are a mess. They are hard to 
explain and impossible to defend. We have a chance to do something 
about them on a bipartisan basis, and I am calling on Senator McConnell 
and all the leaders on either side of the aisle: Let's join together 
and do that. Let's have a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. 
Let's bring this bill to the floor of the Senate this year so that once 
and for all we can deal with the problem we have been looking at for 20 
years and approaching in so many different ways.
  In the meantime, for today--at least for this week and, I hope, for 
long beyond that--we will be celebrating a Supreme Court decision that 
gives a new lease on life to 700,000 young people who have one goal in 
mind: to be part of America's future. They were educated in our 
schools. They stood in those classrooms and pledged allegiance to the 
same flag we pledge allegiance to. They have their children. They have 
their families. They have their hopes and a future, and they are making 
a good living with life in the America. Thanks to the Supreme Court, 
they have some more time, but now it is up to the President and up to 
us to solve this problem once and for all, to do the right thing for 
them and for the future of America.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  DACA

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this morning we received news that the 
Supreme Court has ruled in regard to our Dreamers, our Deferred Action 
Childhood Arrival children, who came to America knowing no other 
country, and now the Court has said that President Obama did have the 
authority to establish the DACA Program and that President Trump does 
not have a basis in law for ending it.
  Hundreds of thousands of Dreamers now have full legal authority to 
continue their lives in America--the country they know and love--and 
pursue their dreams, and we must celebrate that today.


                              Equality Act

  Mr. President, I come to the floor on another issue of freedom. 
President Johnson said:

       Freedom is a right to share, share fully and equally, in 
     American society. . . . It is the right to be treated in 
     every part of our national life as a person equal in dignity 
     and promise to all others.

  It was 1996 when Senator Ted Kennedy brought the issue of ending 
discrimination in employment to the floor of the Senate. In that year, 
not so

[[Page S3078]]

long ago, virtually everything was simple majority in the Senate, as 
designed by our Founders, as written in the Constitution. The vote 
failed 49 to 50 because Senator David Pryor was at the hospital 
attending to his son, the future Senator Mark Pryor, who had cancer. It 
was a moment when the Senate nearly took a big stride forward in ending 
discrimination in employment in America against our LGBTQ community.
  Then, in November 2013, I brought to the floor the same bill, ENDA, 
ending discrimination in employment. This Senate voted in a bipartisan 
majority to end that discrimination. In fact, the vote was 2 to 1--64 
to 32. Yet that bright moment here in the Senate, where we stood for 
the vision of freedom, was not acted on by the House, and the bill did 
not make it to the President's desk.
  Now we stand here today, in 2020, and the Supreme Court on Monday in 
Bostock v. Clayton County, in a 6 to 3 decision, has proceeded to act 
to end discrimination in employment. In writing the opinion, Justice 
Gorsuch said: ``In Title VII''--referring to the 1964 Civil Rights 
Act--``Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis 
of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.''
  He wrote: ``Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire 
someone simply for being homosexual or transgender.''
  Everyone looked to the next paragraph and what would the answer be? 
Gorsuch wrote this:

       The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual 
     for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for 
     traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of 
     a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role 
     in that decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.

  Well, let the bells of freedom ring here in this Chamber and across 
America. On Sunday of this last week, the day before the Supreme Court 
decision, discrimination in employment against gay, lesbian, and 
bisexual Americans was still legal in 29 States--a majority of States 
in our country--and, on Monday, that discrimination ended. It is now 
illegal in all 50 States of America, in all territories of America to 
discriminate on the basis of who you are or whom you love.
  The Court took a long, powerful stride toward the vision carved above 
the doors of the Supreme Court: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' No longer 
can a mental health counselor named Gary Bostock be fired from his job 
at child welfare services department for playing in a gay softball 
league. No longer can a skydiving instructor named Donald Zarda be 
fired because he is gay. No longer can a police officer in southern 
Oregon named Laura Elena Calvo--with a sterling 16-year record of 
promotions, commendations for pulling people from burning cars, 
delivering babies on the side of the road, saving lives and more--be 
fired because she was a transgender woman.

  Employment discrimination ends in America. Let us savor that victory 
for freedom. Let us celebrate that victory for equality and 
opportunity. It is a long, powerful stride forward on the march for 
freedom. But a long stride forward in a march, however significant, 
does not mean that the march is over because, as wonderful as that 
victory on Monday was, as wonderful it is to have discrimination end in 
employment across the land, we still have a long way to go before LGBTQ 
Americans are treated in every part of our national life as people 
equal in dignity and promise to all others.
  The protections on Monday involve employment, but those protections 
do not extend to the titles of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that address 
other issues--issues of education, issues of public accommodations--and 
they don't extend to credit, financial transactions, transactions 
covered by the CREDIT Act. They don't extend to jury service. They 
don't extend to Federal funding of programs, meaning it is legal for 
States to discriminate or cities to discriminate or counties to 
discriminate on the basis of Federal law against participation in 
Federal programs. It is unbelievable that we are still in that state, 
but that is where we are. That is where we are right now, with 
discrimination ended in employment but not ended in all of these other 
categories.
  There are a couple of possible paths forward. One is litigation that 
continues on the same premise on which the Supreme Court acted on title 
VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and that means litigation in each of 
these categories, case after case, slowly making its way through the 
courts, slowly making it to the Supreme Court, meaning discrimination 
continues year after year while the courts deliberate on this.
  I have heard a number of Senators say the Court acted, but Congress 
should have done it. Well, now we have the opportunity to do it. We 
have the opportunity to do it by putting the Equality Act on the floor 
of this Senate, putting it on the floor of the Senate today, having a 
debate today, and having a vote today on whether to extend the very 
premise at the heart of the Supreme Court's decision in employment to 
all of the other key areas of discrimination that is still suffered 
across this land.
  Let us put the Equality Act on the floor. Let us debate it. Let us 
pass it to fulfill the vision Thomas Jefferson put forward when, in the 
words crafted for the Declaration of Independence: ``We hold these 
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they 
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that 
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.''
  Let us put the Equality Act on the floor of the Senate. Let us debate 
it, and let us pass it to act on the premise that Senator Ted Kennedy 
expressed: ``The promise of America will never be fulfilled as long as 
justice is denied to even one among us.''
  Let us put the Equality Act on the floor of the Senate and debate it 
and pass it to fulfill the promise of freedom, the promise of freedom 
that President Johnson so well expressed in ``the right to be treated 
in every part of our national life as a person equal in dignity and 
promise to all others.''
  We have the power to ring the bells of freedom here in this Chamber. 
Let us not miss this opportunity.
  I am so pleased to be here with my colleagues who have fought for 
this vision of freedom and equality and opportunity--my colleague Tammy 
Baldwin from Wisconsin and my colleague Cory Booker from New Jersey, 
who have been champions in leading this fight--a fight envisioned now 
by a tremendous number of Senators endorsing and cosponsoring the 
Equality Act. Let us put that act on the floor
  I yield to my colleague from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an enormous 
step forward for our country, which happened earlier this week, on 
Monday. Once again, on a morning during Pride Month, our Nation came 
closer to realizing the promise of equality for lesbians, gays, 
bisexual, transgender, and the queer community.
  The Supreme Court has made it clear that workplace discrimination 
against LGBTQ people is wrong, and our Nation's civil rights laws 
prohibit it. While this is a joyous day and a joyous week, I want to 
take a moment to acknowledge the untold number who have suffered in 
this country for years without recourse. I want to recognize those 
brave LGBTQ people who received pink slips, were passed over for 
promotions, suffered harassment and bullying in break rooms, or never 
got that initial interview--all simply because of who they are or whom 
they loved.
  I particularly want to thank the plaintiffs who brought these cases: 
Gerald Bostock, Aimee Stephens, and Donald Zarda, as well as the 
families and friends and lawyers who supported them. Sadly, Aimee and 
Donald did not live to see this transformative moment for our country 
and our community, but we will remember them and honor the efforts that 
they and so many others have made to get us here. We will commit 
ourselves to continuing to push forward for full equality for them.
  On Monday, the Supreme Court affirmed what many Federal courts, the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and so many of us have 
recognized for years--that title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is 
properly understood to prohibit discrimination based on sexual 
orientation and gender identity.
  As Justice Gorsuch wrote for the majority:

       Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone 
     simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is

[[Page S3079]]

     clear. An employer who fires an individual for being 
     homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or 
     actions that it would not have questioned in members of a 
     different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role 
     in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.

  This decision is far from radical, but it is transformative. It means 
that at long last in every corner of this Nation, in big cities and 
small towns, LGBTQ people are waking up in a fairer country. They now 
know that they have recourse if an employer discriminates against them 
simply because of who they are or whom they love. Employers know 
unambiguously that they have an obligation in every State to judge all 
of their employees on merit, not sexual orientation or gender identity.
  While we have taken another big step forward--and it is a big step--
in the march toward full equality for LGBTQ Americans, we are not there 
yet. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people face 
discrimination in many more aspects of their lives than the workplace. 
Our country needs to send the message that treating people unfairly 
because of their sexual orientation or gender identity is wrong and 
that it will not be tolerated, period, whether that is while buying a 
house, going out to dinner, shopping in a store, serving on a jury, or 
seeking help from a government program.
  While the Court told us on Monday that discrimination based on sexual 
orientation or gender identity is necessarily sex discrimination, those 
cases were about employment. While I would expect that any 
administration would now take a long, hard look at its wrong-headed 
efforts--based on the legal arguments that the Supreme Court has just 
rejected--to write LGBTQ people out of sex discrimination protections 
in education, healthcare, and other areas, I do not have confidence 
that this administration is going to do so.
  There are areas of Federal civil rights law, such as those governing 
public accommodations and Federal financial assistance, which don't 
even yet prohibit discrimination based on sex. That is why the Senate 
must take up and pass the Equality Act. Senators Merkley, Collins, 
Booker, and I introduced this bipartisan measure to ensure that LGBTQ 
people have the same nondiscrimination protections as other Americans 
by adding sexual orientation and gender identity alongside all 
protected characteristics, such as race and religion, to existing 
Federal laws. It would ban discrimination in a host of areas, including 
housing, public accommodations, jury service, access to credit and 
Federal funding, as well as employment.
  The bill would also strengthen our civil rights laws by adding 
protections against sex discrimination to the Federal laws where they 
have not been included previously, including those addressing public 
accommodations and Federal funding.
  More than a year ago, a bipartisan majority of the House of 
Representatives passed the Equality Act. Unfortunately, like so many 
other pieces of legislation that would improve the lives of the 
American people, it has been ignored by the Senate majority leader and 
placed in his legislative graveyard.
  The Equality Act cannot be ignored any longer by the Senate, and 
LGBTQ people should not have to wait any longer to enjoy the full 
protections of our Nation's civil rights laws.
  I urge the Senate to build on the Supreme Court's decision and act 
today to bring our Nation closer to the promise of equality by passing 
the Equality Act.
  Finally, I want to close by acknowledging the extraordinary moment in 
which our Nation finds itself today. Thousands upon thousands are 
demanding the country confront racial injustices and systemic racism. 
They rightfully call for change, and they righteously call for change, 
and it is my hope that Congress will take an important step in righting 
some of those wrongs by passing the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 
without delay.
  We must do so much more, and today I am keenly aware of the Black and 
Brown LGBTQ people who experience discrimination and injustice in this 
country--not just because of sexual orientation or gender identity but 
also because of race or ethnicity.
  As we approach another anniversary of the Stonewall riots that 
sparked the modern LGBTQ movement for equality, I am also mindful of 
the leadership of Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, transgender 
women of color, in that historic moment. I hope the brave, courageous 
legacy of these leaders and the urgent needs of Black and Brown LGBTQ 
people would inspire us to take another step to strengthen the civil 
rights for all Americans and pass the Equality Act.
  I now yield to my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank my 
wonderful colleagues for their leadership, Senator Merkley and Senator 
Baldwin, for not just being on the floor today and speaking out but 
speaking out every day for introducing the Equality Act, of which I am 
very proud to be a cosponsor, and for continually standing up for the 
rights of all Americans.
  In 2013, a Michigan funeral director wrote a letter. It said:

       What I must tell you is very difficult for me and is taking 
     all the courage I can muster. I felt imprisoned in a body 
     that does not match my mind, and this has caused me great 
     despair and loneliness.

  She told her coworkers, from now on, she was choosing to live her 
truth; from now on, she would be living and working as a woman. 
Unfortunately, she paid dearly for her courage, and 2 weeks later she 
was fired.
  That woman was Aimee Stephens of Redford, MI
  This week, Aimee's courage literally changed history--literally 
changed history. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that 
what happened to Aimee was illegal. It was illegal. Period. Employers 
cannot fire or otherwise discriminate against employees simply because 
of who they are or whom they love. Period.
  Sadly, Aimee didn't get to celebrate the landmark victory, and we all 
wish she were here right now to be able to join and lead the 
celebration. She died last month at age 59. She will go down in history 
as someone who took a stand for equality, for basic fairness, and made 
our Nation a better place. So many people have joined her in this 
fight, getting to this victory.
  It is now time to further honor her courage and the courage of so 
many others by passing the Equality Act, and we can do it today. That 
is the good news. Right now, on the floor today, we can do that 
together. What a great way to end this week; this month of June, this 
Pride Month. What a great way this would be.
  The Equality Act is pretty simple. It protects people against 
discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in all 
aspects of their lives. Unfortunately, this legislation, as my 
colleagues have said, which has already passed the House, has been 
sitting on Mitch McConnell's desk gathering dust for nearly 400 days--
400 days since the House of Representatives took action. It is time to 
shake off that dust and get this thing done for Aimee and for everyone 
who has fought alongside her and continues to fight today to make our 
Nation a more equitable place.
  Now, our Republican colleagues, however, are more interested in 
pushing through extremist judges who have no interest in LGBTQ 
equality.
  Later today and next week, we will be voting on two judicial 
nominations--Justin Walker and Cory Wilson. It is, frankly, insulting 
that these two nominations are even coming to the floor--insulting to 
the American people that they are coming to the floor.
  Justin Walker's nomination is opposed by 275 outside groups, 
including the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the 
National Center for Transgender Equality.
  As for Cory Wilson, he supports H.B. 1523, the so-called Protecting 
Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act, and that 
would give broad permission for people and businesses to deny services 
to people based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
  Both of these nominees--both of them would overturn the Affordable 
Care Act, which has made lifesaving differences for so many members of 
the LGBTQ community and Americans all across our country.
  Justin Walker wants the courts to throw out the entire Affordable 
Care

[[Page S3080]]

Act, including protections for people with preexisting conditions. He 
called the Supreme Court decision upholding the ACA ``indefensible and 
catastrophic.''
  Millions of people get their healthcare through the Affordable Care 
Act. Everyone who has an insurance policy is able to do that and get 
covered, even if they have a preexisting condition, because of the 
Affordable Care Act.
  Cory Wilson used even more colorful language. He called the law 
``illegitimate and perverse.'' Providing people healthcare he thinks is 
perverse, and this is somebody the Republicans are going to put on the 
court.
  He even opposed expanding Medicaid coverage in Mississippi, a change 
that would literally save lives in the middle of a pandemic.
  We know what we need to do because Aimee showed us. We need to pass 
the Equality Act now--today. We can do that today. Wouldn't that be 
wonderful, on a bipartisan basis, to pass this today?
  We need to vote no on two judicial nominees who are far out of step 
with the basic American ideals of equality and fairness.
  Aimee Stevens was courageous. Four hundred days is way too long for 
millions of Americans to wait for the U.S. Senate to step up and do its 
job. It is time for all of us to truly stand up for equality for the 
LGBTQ community and set the foundation that we believe in equality for 
all Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before she leaves, another good idea from 
Senator Stabenow--pass the Equality Act today. Too logical, I guess, 
but it is another good idea, and I thank my colleague for it.
  I also want to commend my partner from Oregon, Senator Merkley, who 
has been leading this fight for years now. Wisconsin often partners 
with Oregon, going all the way back to our shared ownership of Wayne 
Morris. I just want to thank my colleagues for the great work they have 
been doing and just take a couple of minutes to talk about my pride in 
standing with them to fight for the passage of the Equality Act.
  We have come together during the middle of Pride Month. In 2020, with 
the pandemic continuing to spread, Pride Month looks a little different 
than it has in the past--no parades, smaller celebrations--but it still 
has been a historic month when it comes to LGBTQ rights, perhaps more 
so than any other since marriage equality became the law of the land in 
June 2015.
  A few days ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 protects LGBTQ Americans against discrimination in the workplace. 
The majority said an employer who fires an individual merely for being 
gay or transgender defies the law.
  Now, this ruling was a little bit of a surprise. I mean, it was 
absolutely correct in that it recognized that the law offered equal 
protection for LGBTQ Americans--a fact that should never have been in 
doubt.
  I also want to say on the floor today we are going to have to 
continue to be on guard that this administration's judges will use the 
approach underpinning this ruling as cover to strip equal protection 
from other people in future rulings.
  When you get the wrong approach resulting in the correct ruling, we 
have to be vigilant--vigilant, vigilant, and more vigilant in fighting 
for the correct results again and again and again.
  The ruling came just a few days after the Trump administration tried 
to take America in exactly a different direction, announcing that it 
was green-lighting healthcare discrimination against transgender 
Americans--an ugly, shameful action to take. How cruel that the 
administration actually said: We are going to announce this during 
Pride Month. We are actually going to use Pride Month to be cruel.
  It was a reminder to a lot of people that the fight for LGBTQ rights 
didn't end with the victory on marriage equality. For every landmark 
ruling that moves the cause forward, there is somebody like Donald 
Trump, who is always looking to see if they can drag the Nation back to 
the days when discrimination was business as usual.
  Until Monday's ruling, employers in more than half the States were 
allowed to fire employees for their sexual orientation or their gender 
identity. That was in more than half the States, but that injustice is 
now a thing of the past.
  We can't count on this week's Supreme Court ruling against workplace 
discrimination to bring on the end of discrimination in other parts of 
life in our country. The Senate can't wait for any other court cases to 
move forward before we take real action on this floor. That is why my 
colleagues and I are here today. We want to call for the immediate 
passage of the Equality Act. If discrimination against LGBTQ Americans 
is illegal in the workplace, then it is illegal in housing; it is 
illegal in education; it is illegal in public services and more. That 
is what the Equality Act is all about. It is about recognizing the 
dignity and the humanity of LGBTQ Americans, and, most importantly, 
enshrining it into the law. It is the next step that will move the 
cause forward, and there is bipartisan legislation that reflects the 
will of an overwhelming majority of the American people. The Senate 
ought to come together and pass it now.
  Justice Kennedy wrote--and I will close with this because it sums up 
what is in my heart today, ``The Constitution promises liberty to all 
within its reach.''
  There is much to be done on delivering on that promise outlined by 
Justice Kennedy. So we are going to be back here on the floor of the 
Senate, fighting for the passage of the Equality Act. Senator Stabenow 
was spot on. We ought to have done it today, and we are just going to 
be back here again and again and again in the weeks and months ahead 
until we have that promise of equality in every corner of the land.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues from Oregon, 
Senator Wyden, for his remarks; Senator Merkley, for his leadership on 
the bill; and Senator Baldwin from Wisconsin, for her extraordinary 
leadership and service to our country.
  It is a great privilege to be here today. My friend Cory Booker from 
New Jersey has been fighting for these issues for his whole career. Who 
knows, as I know, that anyone who studied the history of our democracy 
knows it has always been hard to make progress. This struggle has 
always been a battle of our highest ideals and our worst instincts as a 
country.
  It has been true since our founding, when the same people who wrote 
that ``all men are created equal'' also perpetuated human slavery and 
denied equality to so many others. In fact, I don't think it is too 
much to say that our history is a story of our struggle with that 
contradiction between the promise of equality and the reality of 
inequality in America--between our highest ideals and our worst 
instincts. We struggle with that today.
  Since he took office, over and over, President Trump has called on 
our worst instincts in almost everything he has done, including his 
attacks on access to healthcare, housing, and education for LGBTQ 
Americans.
  Just last week, he went out of his way to strip transgender Americans 
of their access to healthcare, but just as President Trump was 
depriving hard-won rights, dragging us backward again, in Colorado, on 
the very same day, our State legislature passed a law to make it harder 
to wage violence against LGBTQ people in my State.
  And listen to this: The vote was 63 to 1 in the Colorado House. It 
was 35 to 0 in the Colorado Senate.
  Notwithstanding President Trump's anti-civil rights, anti-civil 
liberties agenda, in Colorado--a Western State, a purple State--
Republican and Democratic elected officials, in their legislative 
season, are fighting for our highest ideals and rejecting our worst 
instincts.
  In fact, my State passed our version of the Equality Act over a 
decade ago. It is why we banned conversion therapy and passed Jude's 
Law, which makes it is easier for transgender Americans to change their 
name and government documents. It is how we have elected our State's 
first openly gay Governor, Jared Polis, and our first transgender State 
legislator, Brianna Titone. It is why we were one of the first States 
in

[[Page S3081]]

America, I say to my college from New Jersey, to pass real 
accountability for police brutality with a bill led by Leslie Herod--
Colorado's first LGBTQ State legislator of color. This week, we passed 
that bill 52 to 13 in the House and 32 to 2 in the Senate. It contains 
many of the same reforms that Senator Booker and Senator Harris are 
leading on here.

  So I am here to tell you that there are more and more in Colorado and 
in the country who understand what equality has come to mean in America 
and how to resolve some of these contradictions in the year 2020, and, 
this week, even the U.S. Supreme Court seems to understand it.
  Just in the last week, a Republican-appointed Justice rejected Donald 
Trump's arguments and wrote for a majority of the Court, affirming 
equality for LGBTQ Americans. Then, this morning, the Court overturned 
President Trump's malicious attack on Dreamers, reaffirming the rule of 
law and, for the moment, protecting three-quarters of a million people 
who know no other country but the United States of America.
  Now it is time for the Senate to do our work, finally, and pass the 
Equality Act. The House passed the Equality Act 13 months ago, and we 
have not acted in our typical fashion. That is another 13 months when 
LGBTQ Americans could get married on a Sunday and be fired on Monday, 
another 13 months when our neighbors could be denied housing, denied 
healthcare or be turned out of a store because of who they are.
  Americans understand that no good comes from hoarding freedoms and 
equality. When we take the opposite view, we act against our 
traditions. As a nation, we will never flourish if we choose to depend 
on a permanent underclass that is deprived of some or all of the rights 
and freedoms others enjoy. Free people do not remain free by denying 
freedom to others. We should vote on the Equality Act and pass it 
today.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today, in the 
middle of Pride Month, to celebrate the Supreme Court's landmark 
decision this week in Bostock v. Clayton County, protecting LGBTQ 
rights and protecting people from discrimination in the workplace, and 
to urge all of our colleagues to secure and extend those protections by 
passing the Equality Act.
  Something else big happened in the Supreme Court, and that was today, 
with the Supreme Court's decision on DACA, on Dreamers--allowing them 
to stay in this country and asking the administration to open up the 
application process for citizenship. That is relevant because it is 
about civil rights, but it is also relevant because the Supreme Court--
this conservative Court--has had to step in because this body has not 
been doing what it should have been: passing the Equality Act and 
passing comprehensive immigration reform. So let us remember that as we 
celebrate the decision in the Bostock case and as we move toward 
equality.
  I thank Senators Merkley, Baldwin, and Booker for their leadership on 
this important bill and for bringing us together today.
  Over the last few decades, we have made progress in the fight for 
equality. We have stood up for what is right, and we have worked hard 
to make this a country in which people can safely, proudly, and legally 
love whom they love. It was not long ago when a person could be 
prosecuted for being gay and when don't ask, don't tell was the law of 
the land--when I came to the U.S. Senate--and when States were 
permitted to deny LGBTQ couples the right to get married under the 
Defense of Marriage Act.
  This week, our country took an important step forward with the 
Supreme Court's decision that recognizes that the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, which prohibits employers from firing employees because of sex, 
protects LGBTQ people in the workplace.
  We can celebrate today that justice was delivered for Aimee Stephens, 
who was fired when she informed her employer that she was transgender, 
and for Donald Zarda and Gerald Bostock, who were fired when their 
employers learned they were gay.
  But, of course, this is more than about three people. As Mr. Bostock 
said, ``This fight became about so much more than me.'' Their courage 
to stand up in the face of injustice will forever change this country 
for millions of LGBTQ people and their families, and it makes our 
country a more just nation.
  Although the Court's decision is a landmark victory, we still have 
miles to go because it is not right when the Commander in Chief tells 
brave transgender Americans who want to serve and protect our country 
in our military that they are not welcome; it is not right when this 
administration is trying to take away the hard-won rights of LGBTQ 
people in healthcare and education; and it is not right that you can 
drive across the United States on a cross-country trip and find that 
the laws and protections could be different at every rest stop.
  That is why I was proud to cosponsor, on the day it was introduced, 
the bipartisan Equality Act with my colleagues who are here today, and 
it is why I am calling on our colleagues across the aisle to pass this 
bill.
  This bill, which already passed the House by a vote of 236 to 173, 
will go a long way in protecting LGBTQ Americans from discrimination. 
The Equality Act would build on the Supreme Court's decision and make 
nondiscrimination protections consistent and explicit. It would amend 
laws like the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit 
Opportunity Act, and Federal employment laws to ensure that all 
Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, 
have equal access to housing, education, and federally funded programs.
  We should not wait any longer to extend these protections, for nearly 
two-thirds of LGBTQ Americans report experiencing discrimination in 
their personal lives. These problems are compounded by race and income, 
especially for trans women of color. Yet it has been over 1 year since 
this bill passed the House.
  In 2000, when I was the county attorney in our largest county in 
Minnesota, I was invited to the White House to introduce President Bill 
Clinton at an event to urge the passage of hate crimes legislation. We 
had had an African-American young man who had been shot by a guy who 
had said that he had wanted to go out and kill someone on Martin Luther 
King Day. That happened. We had had an employee who had gotten beaten 
with a board by the foreman at his workplace for his simply speaking 
Spanish. I had taken on a number of these crimes, so I had been invited 
by the President to urge Congress to pass the Matthew Shepard hate 
crimes legislation, which covered a wide range of hate crimes.
  During that event at the White House--my first time ever there--I got 
to meet the investigators in the Matthew Shepard case. They were these 
two burly cops from Wyoming, and they talked about the fact that until 
that investigation--I think Senator Baldwin is nodding her head and has 
probably met them as well--they really hadn't thought about what 
Matthew Shepard's life was like or the lives of other LGBTQ people. 
Then, as they started to investigate what had happened--and we all 
remember how he was left hanging on a fence post, and the first people 
who saw him thought he was a scarecrow--these investigators, these 
police officers, got to know the family and the case. They got to know 
his mom, and they got to know his friends. During the course of their 
investigation, as they began to understand what life was like for 
Matthew Shepard, their own lives were changed.
  I think this is happening right now around this country after the 
murder of George Floyd in my State, and I know it has been happening 
when it comes to our LGBTQ community. That is why, on that day way 
back, we were in the White House to introduce that bill. Nearly 10 
years after that event at the White House, during my first year as a 
U.S. Senator, I got to be one of the deciding votes to finally pass 
that hate crimes bill.
  So I say to my colleagues who are fighting for justice, who are 
fighting for justice in policing, who are fighting for justice in our 
LGBTQ community, who are fighting for justice for our immigrants, the 
change will happen, but we can't wait 10 years for this change to 
happen. The people of this country

[[Page S3082]]

are demanding that it happen now. We need to come together and finally 
pass the Equality Act and do all of these other good things that are 
right here, that are right on our desks. We should do them 
immediately--not next year--and not wait. Now
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who are here and for 
all of the work that has been done around the Equality Act, not just 
here in the Senate but also in the House of Representatives.
  I want to make this very clear. You look at history, and you see that 
the fundamental equality of all Americans has been denied for so many 
generations--for women who fought for equality under the law and the 
right to vote; for African Americans, who fought for equality under the 
law. We have seen from our founding they have struggled to make real 
the promise of this Nation--a promise of an ideal that we are all equal 
under the law.
  Our Founders--these imperfect geniuses--enshrined these ideals. This 
Nation was not founded in perfection but in aspiration. The very 
Founders themselves referred to Native Americans as savages. They 
talked about women as not being equal citizens. They denied African 
Americans full and equal citizenship. Yet these aspirational documents 
were so profound that every generation of Americans has called to our 
founding ideals to overcome the inequality that has been inherent in 
our country.
  Susan B. Anthony called to the founding documents for her equality 
and the equality of women. Martin Luther King, on The Mall, called to 
that check--to that promissory note--that it was time. Yet here we are, 
in the year 2020, still calling for the full equality of all American 
citizens when it comes to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender 
Americans.
  I think back to my own family--to my grandparents and great-
grandmother--who talked about the excuses that were used to deny them 
equality. There were religious excuses. I am a big believer in 
religious freedom, but people sought to deny Blacks and Whites from 
marrying. In fact, when Loving v. Virginia passed, the majority of 
Americans were still against interracial marriage in this country. 
Somehow, people were using religion as a shield from establishing the 
fundamental ideals of this country. We overcame that.
  These types of reasons were given for the dehumanizing treatment of 
Native Americans, and these kinds of excuses were used to justify the 
segregation of African Americans. In every generation, we fought and we 
struggled and we came together--multiracial, multiethnic, diverse 
coalitions--to overcome this.
  This week, I was so grateful to see the decision of the Supreme 
Court, but I was of mixed feelings about it. Why would it take an 
action of the Supreme Court to justify what already is--equal humanity? 
equal dignity? Why would it take so long for a country to say: ``In 
this Nation, a majority of States cannot discriminate against you. You 
cannot be fired just because of who you are''?
  I hear the echoes of my own ancestry growing up in a country in which 
children were told and saw clearly before them laws enshrined that were 
bigoted and biased; that they were not equal citizens, and even though, 
when we stand up in our grade schools, we have to say those words 
``liberty and justice for all,'' what does it mean to a child who is 
denied those things?
  I see us in a country now in which we are raising children who are in 
danger. LGBTQ kids are almost five times as likely as their straight 
peers to attempt suicide. LGBTQ kids--about 30 percent--admit to 
missing school because of being in fear for their safety. This is in 
America in 2020. Black trans women are dying at unacceptable, 
unconscionable rates. I say dying. They are being murdered. There have 
been 15 transgender or gender nonconforming people who have been 
murdered, and last week alone, two transgender women were killed--
Dominique Fells and Riah Milton.
  We have work to do in this country to establish the fundamental 
ideals that have been said from the founding of this country that we 
will all be equal under the law, the fundamental ideals from the 
founding of this country that we are a nation of liberty and justice 
for all.
  Here we are at the crossroads of history, forcing our fellow 
Americans to come and ask for what is fundamentally theirs already--
equal dignity, equal rights. The Equality Act is too late already. It 
is too late to do what was preordained by the very founding of this 
Nation. We are too late already to save the lives of children who have 
been forced to live in a nation that doesn't recognize their equal 
dignity. We are too late already to protect the shame of people who 
have been fired just because they are gay, who have been denied 
accommodation just because they are gay--the humiliation of which, I 
dare say, so many in this body know from their families' stories.
  So we come here to the floor to ask for what is overdue, to ask for 
us to establish in law what is true in the spirit of this Nation, and 
to echo the words of our ancestors, great suffragettes, great civil 
rights leaders, great Native Americans, who have all come to this 
Capitol to say: This is who we are--equal citizens under the law.
  To my colleagues who are with me today, I tell you that, no matter 
what happens with this unanimous consent, justice will come to this 
country. No matter who stands against this Equality Act, they stand on 
the wrong side of history, on the arc of the moral universe, but it 
bends toward justice. Well, it never bends automatically. We need some 
arc benders. For too many people in this country, justice delayed is 
justice denied. So we will not give up. We will not yield. We will not 
equivocate. We will not retreat. This will become the law of the land.
  We have made some steps in the right direction of justice, but we are 
still in the foothills. We have a mountain to climb, but I know we will 
make it to the mountaintop. I know that this Nation will fulfill its 
promise to all of its people and, indeed, become the promised land.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the powerful words, the 
passionate delivery of stories on the defense of freedom, the defense 
of equality, the advance of justice, and the presentations of my 
colleagues from Wisconsin and Michigan, my partner from Oregon, my 
friend from Colorado, the Senator from Minnesota, and Senator Booker 
from New Jersey. Their words speak to the heart of what our Nation is 
about--equality, opportunity, justice, and freedom.
  I will, therefore, ask that we bring this bill about equality to the 
floor, that we go forward in the great tradition of this Chamber and 
this Senate to debate issues that involve the opportunity for every 
individual to thrive in our Nation. Time and again, we have held those 
debates before. We held them in 2013 on the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act.
  Now, I understand some colleagues have come to the floor to object to 
this Senate's entertaining such an important debate. They have come to 
the floor to obstruct the opportunity of this Chamber to engage in a 
dialogue on this important issue--so violent to the life of millions of 
Americans. I ask them to reconsider.
  Have the courage to debate this issue on the floor--to bring, in the 
great tradition of this country, an issue violent to freedom to be 
considered here.
  One colleague responded to the Supreme Court's decision on employment 
nondiscrimination earlier this week by saying: This judicial rewriting 
of our law short-circuited the legislative process and the authority of 
the electorate. Well, let no Member of the Senate today short circuit 
the legislative process by objecting to this important debate on the 
floor of the Senate.

  On behalf of equality and opportunity and freedom, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 5 and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration. Further, that the bill be considered read a third time 
and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I am reserving the right to object.

[[Page S3083]]

  There is a single thread that runs through the Supreme Court's 
decision in the Bostock case earlier this week and all the way through 
the legislation now under discussion on the Senate floor, and that 
principle deals with nondiscrimination. It is a principle that, as 
Americans, we believe that people shouldn't be treated differently on 
the basis of factors, characteristics, and traits that have nothing to 
do with their job. I think most Americans can agree with that, and I 
think most Americans can agree that an individual shouldn't face such 
discrimination in the workplace based on his or her sexual orientation.
  The important thing that we have to remember is that much of where 
the law is found and much of what we can perceive from a position of 
justice and equality and fairness relates to where the exceptions are 
found. I have got two principal concerns with this legislation that are 
also shared by the Bostock ruling. The first relates to exceptions 
related to religious employers.
  Neither the Bostock decision nor the Equality Act takes the care to 
ensure that religious employers will be treated fairly under this 
approach. We need to be mindful of the need of a religious employer to 
maintain its doctrine and its teachings, not only in the hiring of its 
ministers but also in the hiring of other people who worked toward 
moving forward that religious institution's teachings in the way they 
live their lives, in their beliefs, and in their willingness to teach 
those things to others. This legislation doesn't do that. I think any 
legislation that we move forward on this needs to have it.
  Secondly, neither this legislation nor the Bostock decision takes 
into account some significant distinctions between sexual orientation 
on the one hand and gender identity on the other.
  In the case of gender identity, the law needs to take into account 
certain questions regarding what impact the law might have on girls and 
women's restrooms and locker rooms, girls and women's athletics, and 
single-sex safe places for people who are, for example, the victims of 
domestic or sexual abuse. This law, like the Bostock decision, doesn't 
operate with a lot of precision and sort of takes a meat cleaver to the 
issue without taking into account exceptions for religious entities and 
distinctions between sexual orientation and gender identity. On that 
basis, I have concerns.
  Knowing that I have some colleagues who want to speak to this issue, 
I decline to object as of this moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri
  Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would 
just like to observe that it was just over 20 years ago that this 
Chamber and the analog Chamber across the way in the House of 
Representatives passed almost unanimously a statute called the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It was sponsored in the House by 
then-Representative Schumer, and it was sponsored in this Chamber by 
Senator Edward Kennedy, and signed by President Bill Clinton into law, 
who, upon its signing, referred to religious liberty as our first 
freedom--those are his words--and he later pointed to the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act as one of his proudest accomplishments as 
President of the United States. Its cosponsors in this body included 
Senators Feinstein and Murray and Leahy. It was bipartisan is my point, 
to put it mildly.
  Yet, today, this short time on the legislation that is offered on 
this floor now, that has not gone through the normal process of 
committee referral, debate on the floor but would be passed now, 
without any further discussion, guts key provisions of the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act. This is coming on the heels of a Supreme Court 
decision just 2 days ago that rewrites entire statutes in American law 
and in its 33 pages has nearly nothing to say about religious liberty 
or religious believers in this country. In fact, the only thing that 
the opinion does say of any consequence is this:

       How [the courts'] . . . doctrines protecting religious 
     liberty interact with Title VII [as rewritten by the court] 
     are questions for future cases.

  Now, I respect, very much, my colleagues across the aisle and their 
passion for this issue and their sincerity in this cause. I would only 
ask that the rights of well-meaning, sincere religious believers not be 
steamrolled and overlooked and shifted to the side as part of this 
process. We should be able to come together and stand together in the 
effort to see all people be given their constitutional rights and have 
their constitutional rights protected.
  The effects of this bill is forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions, 
forcing doctors and nurses to perform abortions against their will, and 
forcing faith-based hospitals and clinics to perform abortions. H.R. 5, 
this bill here, would supersede existing restrictions on abortion, 
including funding, including health and safety standards, and other 
regulations that the States have passed.
  It would force faith-based adoption agencies, some of which have been 
helping birth mothers find a safe and loving and permanent home for 
more than 100 years--it would force them out of business. It would 
coerce those who don't want to speak or who hold different beliefs into 
adopting this set of practices and principles and beliefs at work--
these doctors, these nurses, and these faith-based agencies.
  I submit to you that this is not the way to find consensus in 
America. This shunting aside of the constitutional rights of sincere, 
well-meaning people of faith is not the way to proceed. This gutting of 
the Religious Freedom Act--and I say that because H.R. 5 explicitly 
carves out of the Religious Freedom Act, it explicitly carves out of 
its safety provisions all of those requirements I just mentioned. It 
rolls back the liberties afforded to people of faith--all faiths, by 
the way. One of the beauties of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 
is that it covers people of all faiths, any faith, and this bill would 
roll those protections back. It would do it without the chance for 
debate. It would do it outside of our normal procedures.
  For those reasons, I express these reservations. Again, I thank my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their work on this issue, 
their passion for this cause, and their sincerity in what they believe. 
I hope that we might find a better way to go forward together, but I do 
not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I am reserving the right to object. No 
person should be discriminated against in America. No one. It is a 
basic constitutional principle. We are all equal under the law, all of 
us. We have different ideas about music and food. We have different 
ideas about sexuality. We have different ideas about occupations. We 
have different skin colors. We are the tapestry that we talk about, and 
we are working to make a more perfect Union. I absolutely believe that 
no person should be discriminated against in America.
  The Equality Act doesn't just make everything equal, though. It has a 
great title. Who can oppose equality? No one. It is a basic principle 
of American values. We don't oppose equality, but we do oppose when, 
through legislation, you take the rights of one and dismiss the rights 
of others and say: Your rights don't count, only this group counts, and 
only this person counts. We, in America, have tried to work together, 
in all of our differences, for over two centuries, to learn better how 
to hear the rights of another one, to accommodate, and to find those 
spots where the rights of two individuals collide and to work it out 
among each other. The Equality Act does not do that. I wish it did. It 
changes things dramatically.
  Let me just give you a few examples. It reaches into high school 
sports and says for male and female sports, that individuals' sexual 
orientation and gender identity can move between those. There is no 
standard for testosterone. There is no standard for moving through 
transition surgery. There is no standard at all set on it. It opens it 
up for any male--biological male--to step into female sports on the 
high school level or in the college level or in the pro-athlete level 
and be able to move into that sport. That grossly disadvantages girls 
in sports, but their rights are denied.
  We have already seen this in several States where State record 
holders for track, for instance--someone who was a biological male 
competing in women's athletics denying the other girls who were 
competing in that from opportunities for scholarships to college,

[[Page S3084]]

to be able to move on to other athletics. Their rights were ignored 
because these rights were prioritized.
  In adoptions, we need more adoption areas. We need more foster care 
in America, not less. The Equality Act says that if you are a faith-
based adoption agency that only places children in a home where there 
is a mom and dad there, then you either have to change your faith or 
close. You have no other option. The Equality Act says to that 
institution: I would rather have fewer adoption agencies in America 
than have you open.
  That is not protecting the rights of all Americans. That is not 
learning how to accommodate together. Why can't we have adoption 
agencies that do adoptions in LGBT homes and some that do adoptions 
that don't? Why can't we have both? Why can't we accommodate both? The 
Equality Act does not allow that
  The Equality Act treats every job in America exactly the same and 
says that an individual who is qualified for that job should be able to 
take that job, regardless of any issue. Let me give you a first example 
of that.
  If you have an individual going through TSA--and what a lovely 
experience that is for all of us--this Equality Act would say: When 
your alarm goes off and you have to get the full-body pat-down, a 
transgender individual could be your TSA person giving you the full-
body pat-down. They would be required to not prohibit that.
  Now, for some people, they would be like: I don't care. It is a pat-
down. I don't care. For other people, it would be like--there is a 
reason why TSA has done pat-downs of a man for a man and a woman for a 
woman because there are many people uncomfortable with someone of an 
opposite gender who does that to them. They just are. Maybe you call 
them prudes, but we have honored their rights. The Equality Act does 
not. It ignores their rights and says that you no longer have the right 
to disagree with this, and you have to just accept it.
  It also dramatically changes hiring in America in a way that is 
unexplored. There is a reason we send bills through committee, not just 
bring them to the floor and demand that they pass on the same day they 
land on the floor without going through committee. There is a reason we 
do that--because this bill changes the way hiring is done in America in 
a way that has not been tested for everyone.
  This adds a new feature to title VII, where it says, in title VII, 
that you can't discriminate based on race, on sex--that has now been 
redefined, obviously, by the courts--on religion, all these things. It 
clarifies. You can't discriminate based on that. But it adds a new 
phrase on this. ``Perception or belief'' is the new phrase.
  This is how that would be applied in courts. If I go to an interview 
in a job and I am not hired, I can sue that employer because I 
perceived they were thinking I was gay and so they didn't hire me, or--
because it applies to all of it--I could, actually, because this does 
expand this significantly, if I go in to get a job and I am not hired, 
I could sue them for not hiring me because I perceived that it was 
because I was a Christian and they didn't hire me. I perceived that it 
was because I was White that they didn't hire me. I don't have to prove 
anything. It is based simply on my perception or belief. That is an 
untested expansion.
  Now, this term ``perception or belief'' is lifted right out of our 
hate crime statutes, but hate crime statutes, on their face, are all 
about the motive for it, and you are trying to read into a crime the 
motive for that crime. Now we are trying to literally read someone 
else's mind in a hiring situation and to say that I perceived it, so if 
you don't hire me, I can sue you.
  Why are we doing this? That opens up litigation all over the country 
on every area, not just on this issue of LGBT rights--on every 
situation and every hiring because it is very expansive. We probably 
should slow down and look at that before we open that floodgate in 
America, but this does not.
  Today is about demanding that it passes right away. Interestingly 
enough, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act is wiped away in this and ignored. Interestingly 
enough, the Supreme Court stated just this week that on this issue, 
Congress should apply this. Let me read what Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, 
Sotomayor, and Kagan wrote this week, along with Roberts and Gorsuch. 
They said this:

       Separately, the employers fear that complying with Title 
     VII's requirements in cases like ours may require some 
     employers to violate their religious convictions. We are also 
     deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free 
     exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution; that 
     guarantee lies at the heart of our pluralistic society.

  They go on to speak of we will have a case dealing with the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act. The Equality Act, instead, says: No, never 
mind, Supreme Court. I know that you are concerned about religious 
freedoms--Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Roberts--but 
never mind. Congress is not concerned with religious liberty like you 
are.
  Come on. Let's work together. We don't want anyone to be 
discriminated against--anyone. We can do this in a way that 
accommodates everyone, and then we can actually work toward agreement.
  To say it in the words of J.K. Rowling this past week where she 
wrote, ``All I'm asking--all I want--is for similar empathy, similar 
understanding, to be extended to the many millions of women whose sole 
crime is wanting their concerns to be heard without receiving threats 
and abuse.''
  Let's work together to get equality. This bill does not do it in this 
form; therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I am disappointed that my colleagues 
have come to the floor to stand in the way of a debate, in this 
esteemed Chamber, over issues of freedom, issues of opportunity, and 
issues of equality that affect millions of LGBTQ Americans.
  What did we hear in their conversation? My colleague from Utah says 
there is no chance for debate. Has my colleague forgotten that bringing 
a bill to the floor brings it to debate? Is that such a lost art in the 
Senate that my colleague thinks debating a bill on the floor somehow 
squelches debate? It is a mystery to me how one can make the argument 
that bringing a bill to the floor kills debate.
  My colleague from Oklahoma laments there is no committee action. 
Well, my colleague might be reminded that for 400 days this party has 
controlled whether or not there is committee action on this bill; that 
it is the majority that decides whether a committee addresses the 
issues before it. Is not 400 days of inaction in committee an argument 
to have the conversation here as a committee of the whole? Isn't that 
what we are asking for--a committee of the whole to debate these key 
issues?
  My colleagues have also referred to how somehow this bill affects 
religious rights, and I am taken back through the history of the 
conversation and dialogue about equality and opportunity in America, 
how every time we seek to end discrimination, someone says: But wait--
religious rights.
  Remember that this was the argument against Black and Brown Americans 
having equality here in the United States of America because their 
religion said they are not equal and they shouldn't be let in the door 
and I should have the right to not let them in the door.
  I should have the right to discriminate. Isn't that the conversation 
we heard around the opportunity for women in America to play a full 
role in our society, that people had a religious foundation for 
discriminating between men and women? Well, I tell you that this 
Nation, although imperfect, was founded on a vision that everyone is 
created equal and has a full chance to participate.
  We have worked over hundreds of years to get toward the goal that 
every child can thrive in America, no matter their gender, no matter 
the color of their skin, no matter if they are identified as gay, 
lesbian, or bisexual, no matter if they are transgender. That is the 
conversation we should be having here.
  I feel the injury of a Senate that is no longer a Senate, where 
people tremble in their seats over the idea of having a debate. What 
has happened to this esteemed body that that should be the case?

[[Page S3085]]

  So let us not rest. For those colleagues across the aisle who have 
said that the Supreme Court shouldn't have acted this week, that it 
should be the legislature that acts, and yet come to the floor and 
don't argue--fail to argue--that we should, in fact, act, isn't that 
obstruction of the legislative process?
  I would encourage my colleagues who say that there are important 
issues to be considered to go to their leadership and say ``Let's get 
the committee that has this bill, the Equality Act, to start doing its 
job: Hold the hearings; hold the conversation'' because to fail to 
argue that it should be done in committee while you lament on the floor 
that the committee hasn't acted is certainly an argument with no 
integrity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3957

  Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the Confederate 
monuments that are in our hallowed Halls of Congress. I would like to 
make a live UC request, but preceding that request, I want to make just 
a few very brief remarks.
  The National Statuary Hall, where these Confederate statues are in 
the Capitol, is intended to honor the highest ideals of our Nation. It 
is intended to honor the spirit of our country and those who exhibited 
this spirit with heroism, with courage, and with distinction.
  It is a rare honor that every State gets to pick two people, out of 
the entire history of the country, who so exemplify the values, the 
spirit, and the honor of America. There are only 100 statues--just 100 
statues--two from every State.
  Between 1901 and 1931, 12--12--Confederate statues were placed in the 
National Statuary Hall, that hallowed hall. During the vast majority of 
that same period, from 1901 through 1929, after a vicious period of 
voter suppression and violence against African-American voters and a 
stripping de facto of their rights, and often de jure, not a single 
African American served in either of the Congress. In fact, the exact 
same year the first Confederate statue was placed in the Capitol, 1901, 
was also the year that the last African-American person would serve in 
Congress for almost 30 years--almost 70 from just the South.
  This is a period that we don't teach enough about in our country. It 
is a period of untold violence of domestic terrorism, of the rise of 
the Klan and other White supremacist organizations in which, from the 
late 1800s to about 1950, literally thousands of Americans--about 4,400 
well-documented cases--were lynched in this country.
  We cannot separate the Confederate statues from this history and 
legacy of White supremacy in this country. Indeed, in the vast history 
of our Nation, those Confederate statues represent 4 years--roughly 4 
years--of the Confederacy. The entire history of our country hails as 
heroes people who took up arms against their own Nation, people who 
sought to keep and sustain that vile institution of slavery, who led us 
into the bloodiest war of our country's history, who lost battle after 
battle until they were defeated soundly. The relics of that 4-plus year 
period, giving this sacred space to these traders upon our Nation, is 
not just an assault to the ideals of America as a whole, but they are a 
painful, insulting, difficult injury being compounded to so many 
American citizens who understand the very desire to put people who 
represented 4-plus years of treason, the very desire to put them there 
in an era of vast terrorism, was yet another attempt at the suppression 
of some of our citizens in this country.
  The continued presence of these statues in the halls is an affront to 
African Americans and the ideals of our Nation. When we proclaim this 
not just to be a place of liberty and justice for all, but as we seek 
to be a more beloved nation, a kinder nation, a nation of equal respect 
and equal dignity, it is an assault on all of those ideals.
  I would like to ask for unanimous consent, but before I do so, I 
would like to yield to the Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first I want to thank my dear friend, 
the Senator from New Jersey.
  Our caucus and the American people are lucky to have him as such a 
champion, not only for this proposal but for all of his work in recent 
years on legislation related to police reform, racial justice, and so 
many other issues.
  In a moment, my friend will ask to pass a bill that will do something 
very simple and, indeed, long overdue: It will remove the statues here 
in the Capitol of men who would rend this country apart by war in order 
to strengthen, perpetuate, and extend the vile institution of slavery.
  There is a movement in America right now that demands we confront the 
poison of racism in our country. We must do this in many ways, both 
substantive and symbolic. This bill is just one of many steps we must 
take to acknowledge the painful history of America's original sin--
slavery--and to clarify for all generations that the men who defended 
it shall hold no place of honor in our Nation's history books.
  States and localities are removing Confederate statues in their 
public parks and municipal buildings. NASCAR has banned the Confederate 
flag at its events. We will soon debate renaming military installations 
after Confederate generals. Why should the Capitol, of all places--a 
symbol of the Union, a place where every American is supposed to have 
representation--continue to venerate such ignoble figures?
  Opponents of the bill will say that removing these statues is akin to 
forgetting or trying to erase history. No, it is not. Remembering 
history is a lot different than celebrating it.
  We teach history in our schools and universities and museums. No 
doubt, the Civil War will continue to merit study, but statues and 
memorials are symbols of honor, and we need not reserve them for men 
who represent such a dishonorable cause.
  Leader McConnell has ducked this issue and has said that the States 
should continue to decide who to send to the Capitol. Candidly, I don't 
think it would be too imposing to ask our States not to send statues of 
people who actively fought against this country. You know, there is a 
reason that Connecticut doesn't send a statue of Benedict Arnold to the 
Capitol.
  We have a lot of work to do to unwind centuries of racial injustice 
embedded in our laws and in our institutions. One of the simplest 
things we could do is to haul out the statues of a few old racists who 
represent the very antithesis of the building in which we now stand and 
the ideals we struggle to live up to. This, my friends, is the easy 
part.
  Let us pass this bill today and send a message to the American people 
that we are serious about dismantling institutional racism piece by 
piece, brick by brick, statue by statue, starting with our own House--
the people's House--the Nation's Capitol Building.
  I yield again to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 3957 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration. I further ask that the bill be read a third time and 
passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Missouri
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, reserving the right to object, let me say 
that we just got this bill assigned to the Rules Committee. The bill 
would have the effect of abandoning agreements we have entered into 
with the States and the States have entered into with us.
  I would certainly like to have some time to decide if we should have 
a hearing on this. I would like to get the opinion of people who are 
taking similar statues out of the building. I would also like to find 
out what other States have in mind as their part of the agreement.
  The Democratic leader just said that States and localities are 
removing these statues. Each of these States would have the right to 
remove this statue, and some are.
  This is an agreement with the States. It goes back to 1864. By 1933, 
Statuary Hall was full, and Congress, again, authorized this program by 
saying that

[[Page S3086]]

these statues could be placed in the Capitol. It took until about 2000 
until there were 100 statues from the States. States are limited to two 
from each State. With 50 States, there were 100 statues by 2000.
  At that point, the Congress passed another law providing a way that 
the States, for the first time, could take a statue out. Even in 2000, 
there was no suggestion then or before then that Congress would decide 
whether the statue that the State wanted to put in could be put into 
the building.
  As a matter of fact, the Presiding Officer's State, Nebraska, just 
recently replaced Williams Jennings Bryan with Chief Standing Bear 
under the provisions made to do that.
  Congress has been very prescriptive on how this happens. The State 
would have to pass legislation; the Governor would have to sign it to 
put a statue in the building; and Congress would determine only if the 
statue met the requirements that the other statues had been held to. 
Until now, that has been the congressional part of this agreement with 
the States to take a statue out of the collection and replace it with 
another one. My State, Missouri, is replacing Thomas Hart Benton with 
Harry Truman. The legislature had to agree what statue would go out, 
what statue would come in, and Congress would then accept that statue 
if it met the standards.
  Again, we can do away with that program. We could do a lot of things. 
But we have entered into that agreement.
  The forts, as an example--and, again, the minority leader mentioned 
the forts. The forts are named totally by the Congress. I expressed my 
belief this week and last week that it would be absolutely appropriate, 
in my view, to review the names that the forts have been named after, 
including the forts that are named after Confederate military leaders, 
and change those names. We can do that all on our own. We haven't told 
North Carolina that a fort has to be named after General Bragg. We 
haven't told Texas that a fort has to be named after Confederate 
General Hood. We can change those.
  I am very open to looking at that and likely doing that. I just 
think, for my friend from New Jersey, that this is a more complicated 
arrangement than activity on the floor today would suggest.
  I would also point out that in 2000, since Congress said that you can 
replace statues with another statue--you have to take a statue out to 
put a statue in, but you can replace statues, eight of those statues 
have already been replaced, and eight more are in the process of being 
replaced. I think four or five of the statues that have been replaced 
or would be replaced were in the standard of the Confederate statues.
  I am encouraged that States are looking at their history, and they 
are looking at who has come since they put those statues in. Arkansas 
replaced Uriah Milton Rose, a Confederate statue, with Daisy Gatson 
Bates, a civil rights leader. Florida replaced Edmund Kirby-Smith with 
Mary McLeod Bethune, an educator, a Presidential adviser, and civil 
rights leader. Arkansas is in the process of replacing one of these 
statues.
  I think that today's action would violate our agreement with the 
States. I frankly thank my friend from New Jersey for encouraging the 
Governors, encouraging the speakers of the house to do what they have 
every right--and the Congress, in fact, in 2000, gave them the right--
to do.
  The minority leader was the chairman of the committee that determines 
all of this just a handful of years ago and took no actions to do what 
the Senate is talking about doing today.
  So with that in mind, I object
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, if I could just respond--I know how busy 
my colleague is. He has a well-earned reputation on both sides of this 
body for his sincerity, for his decency, and for his honor. I take to 
heart his words that this is often not a good forum in which to try to 
push a piece of legislation that might have controversy on both sides. 
I understand his sincere concerns with that.
  I guess he also understands the sincerity with which I bring this up: 
the hurt and the pain that these statues represent in a place where 
millions of Americans come to the Capitol and see this as their body.
  I say to the Senator, because there are complications in this and 
there are issues we would have to work through as a Senate, I guess the 
one last appeal to your more senior status and maybe your friendship is 
this: Will you join me, at least, on a letter to the appropriate 
committee, asking them to at least have a hearing on this issue so that 
we could have a full vetting of all of the complexities and have a real 
discussion on something that is a pressing concern? I note that you 
know it is a pressing concern because some States are already taking 
action.
  You see this action being taken across various parts of our country. 
You see this issue being pushed into the national consciousness. You 
see Republicans and Democrats, from Nikki Haley to my dear friend, the 
former mayor of New Orleans, Mayor Landrieu--I think it would be just 
and right that, perhaps, you and I, in a show of bipartisan concern and 
sincere awareness of the complexity of this issue, could just join--the 
two of us--in a letter asking the committee to take up this issue in 
due time so that we can have an appropriate discussion from all 
perspectives on this issue.
  Mr. BLUNT. If I could have the chance to respond here----
  Mr. BOOKER. Of course.
  Mr. BLUNT. This bill was just assigned to our committee. This is a 
discussion that, I guess appropriately, we might have had before I was 
asked to come to the floor to assert the rights of the committee, to 
have the opportunity to think about that. I don't know that I want to 
negotiate that right here. But as I said, and my friend heard just a 
moment ago, I would like to hear from the States that are replacing 
statues and I would like to hear from the States that are thinking 
about replacing statues if this is a problem in the process of, under 
the current structure, solving itself.
  I am glad to have continued discussions about this. I certainly don't 
impugn my friend's motives. You know, you can question somebody's 
decision to maybe bring a bill this quickly to the floor without giving 
us a chance to talk about it, but I have no interest, then, in 
impugning my friend's motives and understand some of the concerns my 
friend would have on this topic.
  Mr. BOOKER. Thank you, sir.
  If I may, I will make a personal appeal for a hearing on these 
matters. I hope that we can do that in due time. I know the pace at 
which the Senate often works, but I am grateful for this open dialogue 
and I know you had to adjust your schedule so I am grateful for your 
time and generosity.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                                  DACA

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, 8 years ago almost to the day, President 
Obama announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival, otherwise 
known as DACA. At the time, I remember the conversations a number of us 
had with President Obama, saying please give us a chance to work this 
out by passing appropriate legislation in the Congress. He heard those 
pleas, but in spite of the fact of saying numerous times he did not 
have the authority to do so, he proceeded to issue a memorandum that 
gave rise to the DACA program.
  Rather than rolling up our sleeves and working together to create 
lasting immigration policy, President Obama chose to do this through an 
Executive memorandum. It is that Executive memorandum that has made its 
way through the courts over the last 8 years and finally to the U.S. 
Supreme Court.
  Unfortunately, this is the bitter fruit of what President Obama did 
when he attempted to usurp Congress in a way to provide certainty and 
comfort to hundreds of thousands of young people--a goal that we all 
share--but to do so in a way that ultimately created more harm. It sent 
them on a years' long tumultuous journey, which is not over with the 
Supreme Court decision today. Basically, what the Supreme Court said 
was, under the Administrative Procedure Act, he didn't do it the right 
way, so go back and try it again and get it right this time.
  Well, I think these young people deserve better. The debate over 
President

[[Page S3087]]

Obama's authority has held these individuals hostage, leaving them 
wondering if they might ultimately be deported to a country they have 
no memory of and forced to leave their families, their jobs, and the 
opportunities they have worked so hard to build here in the United 
States behind.
  Make no mistake about it, today the Supreme Court ruled that the 
Department of Homeland Security didn't follow the proper procedures to 
rescind the DACA program and thus allowed the program to continue for 
now, but this is just a temporary measure. DACA recipients must have a 
permanent legislative solution. They deserve nothing less. These young 
men and women have done nothing wrong. They came to the United States 
as children, and in America, we don't hold children responsible for the 
mistakes of their parents, in this case, the mistake of not going 
through the legal immigration process. So these kids--young people, I 
should say--are innocent.
  Texas is home to more than 100,000 DACA recipients who are a vital 
part of our communities. They have grown up with our kids, attended the 
same churches, shopped at the same stores, and defended our freedoms in 
the U.S. military. Many of these young people are in their 30s now with 
careers, families, plans, hopes and dreams of their own.
  So the uncertainty about their status and what will happen to them is 
no less terrifying for them than it would be for any of us. It is 
simply unfair for these young people who, again, through no fault of 
their own, find themselves in this situation to rely solely on an 
Executive memorandum instead of a law passed by Congress. I believed 
that when President Obama rejected our request to work with Congress 
and come up with a permanent solution, and I believe it now.
  I believe the Supreme Court has thrust upon us a unique moment and an 
opportunity. We need to take action and pass legislation that will 
unequivocally allow these young men and women to stay in the only home 
in the only country they have ever known.
  In the past, I have supported a number of bills that would have 
allowed these individuals to remain in the United States without the 
fear of a court decision hanging in the balance, but each time, 
partisan disagreements have prevented us from turning anything into 
law. When it comes to immigration laws, Congress, on a bipartisan 
basis, never fails to fail.
  Well, I hope we can all agree, given this opportunity, that it is not 
time for politics as usual, but it is time to provide some certainty, 
some compassion, some support for these young men and women. After 
years of being yanked around from courtroom to courtroom, these young 
men and women deserve that certainty. They deserve to know that, when 
they apply to college, grow up with their families, live their lives, 
and do all the things everybody else wants to do, that they can do so 
without a dark cloud hanging over their plans. But, as usual, in order 
to come up with any solution, it is going to take buy-in from the 
Senate, House, and White House.
  I have been having conversations for years about this topic, but most 
recently, I have been having conversations about the most efficient and 
effective way to protect these young people in the long-term, and I am 
willing to work with anyone, Republican or Democrat, who is interested 
in solving the problem--not grandstanding, not posturing, not acting 
like you care when you really don't, elevating politics over a 
solution. I am not interested in that. If anyone is interested in 
solving the problem and providing support for these young people, I am 
all in.
  Over the years, I have engaged with the Texas Hispanic Chambers of 
Commerce, LULAC, Catholic bishops, and a number of other individuals 
and organizations that share my commitment to providing certainty for 
these young people. I hope we can come together and help them. These 
folks want nothing more than to continue to be part of the American 
dream. I hope we can deliver


                               Juneteenth

  Madam President, on another matter. One of the most defining days in 
our Nation's history was when President Lincoln issued the Emancipation 
Proclamation on January 1, 1863, finally freeing all slaves in 
Confederate territory, but slaves in Texas wouldn't learn this life-
altering news for 2\1/2\ years.
  I know it is hard for us to understand. Now, we can tweet and 
communicate instantaneously, but it took 2\1/2\ years for slaves in the 
South to learn that they were free. That day came on a day we now 
celebrate as Juneteenth. That was the day that Major General Gordon 
Granger and the Union troops arrived in Galveston, TX, and shared the 
news to formerly enslaved people that they were now free. These free 
men and women set out to spread this news, with many traveling toward 
Houston, and eventually reaching more than 250,000 slaves throughout 
Texas.
  As we do every year, tomorrow, Texans will celebrate Juneteenth and 
the 155th anniversary of the end of slavery in our State. It is an 
opportunity to reflect on our history, the mistakes we have made, but 
yet how far we have come in the fight for equality and a reminder of 
just how far we still have to go. That is especially true this year.
  Over the last several weeks, Americans of all races, backgrounds, and 
of all ages have raised their voices in the fight against inequality 
and injustice that continues to exist in our society, especially those 
in our criminal justice system. As the list of Black men and women 
killed by police officers in custody grows, the calls for action are 
getting louder and louder, as they must and as they should. There is a 
clear and urgent need for leaders at every level to come together and 
to deliver the change that we need to deliver in order to match up with 
our ideals.
  I and others have said before, slavery was the original sin of the 
United States of America. We said: We hold these truths to be self-
evident, that all men are created equal and at the same time embraced a 
system that didn't acknowledge African Americans as being fully human. 
That was a sin. We have been paying a bitter price throughout our 
Nation's history. While we have come a long way, we know there is more 
we need to do.


                              JUSTICE Act

  In the context of police reforms, our friend Senator Tim Scott from 
South Carolina has introduced a bill which I have cosponsored, as have 
many other Members of the Senate. It is called the JUSTICE Act, and it 
will reform our police departments to provide much-needed transparency 
and accountability. It takes aim at a number of practices and policies 
that have led to a number of tragic deaths, that have united these 
nationwide protests and captured our conscience.
  To prevent these tragedies from happening in the first place, this 
bill emphasizes things such as deescalation training. As I looked at 
the video of the two police officers in Atlanta, waking up somebody 
asleep in a fast-food line, then interrogating him for 45 minutes 
before it then broke out into a violent confrontation, I thought they 
could have used some deescalation training. Maybe, just maybe, a life 
would have been saved. Maybe they would have said: Give us your car 
keys, take a cab, go home, and sleep it off. But that is not what 
happened.
  We also need training for police officers that otherwise haven't had 
that training or don't know to know when they need to intervene when 
they see another officer exert excessive force. We need more 
transparency--things like body cameras--and we need more information on 
things like use of force and no-knock warrants so that we can hopefully 
come up with a set of best practices that police departments all across 
the country should employ.
  To gain a better understanding of the problems that exist throughout 
our criminal justice system--and this is just one of them--the bill 
establishes two commissions, one to perform a top-to-bottom review of 
our criminal justice system and another to study the challenges facing 
Black men and boys.
  This legislation would also make lynching a Federal crime, it takes 
aim at the dangerous practice of choke holds, and it strengthens 
minority hiring. I could go on and on, but I believe these changes have 
the potential to create real and lasting change in America's police 
departments and begin to repair the broken relationship between law 
enforcement and the communities they serve.
  Beyond the merits of the bill itself, there is another quality worth 
noting, and that is it includes a number of

[[Page S3088]]

measures that have bipartisan support. In other words, there is a lot 
of overlap between what Democrats want to do and what Republicans want 
to do. We have to just learn how to take yes for an answer.
  We all want to get 100 percent of what we want, but as a practical 
matter, you need to follow the 80/20 rule sometimes. That is, if you 
can get 80 percent of what you want, that Republicans and Democrats can 
agree on, then you need to grab it. That is what we need to do here, 
not focus on the differences, but focus on the commonality, on the 
overlap.
  By the way, when I first got to the Senate, Teddy Kennedy was one of 
the great liberal lions here. I asked one of my conservative 
colleagues, the senior Senator from Wyoming who worked very 
productively with him, how they did it, one of the most liberal Members 
of the Senate, one of the most conservative Members of the Senate. 
Senator Enzi, our friend from Wyoming, said: It is easy. It is the 80/
20 rule.
  That is how they were so productive. That is how they got so much 
done. They didn't focus on what separated them; they focused on what 
they shared in common, and that is what we need to do particularly now 
at this time to demonstrate to America that we hear you, we understand 
the reason for the protests. We understand the reason for concern, and 
we share your anguish when innocent lives are lost.
  Madam President, as we prepare to debate the JUSTICE Act on the floor 
next week, finding that common ground is more important than ever, but 
I am worried that the same old partisan dysfunction which hijacks so 
many good ideas here in the Congress may dominate over our need to 
actually pass legislation.
  I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will allow us to 
get on the bill, and hopefully, we will have an amendment process that 
will allow them to contribute, maybe even make the bill better. That is 
what we should do. That is what we used to do in the Senate. We had 
debates, we offered amendments, and then we voted.
  We didn't shut it down before we even got it started, which is what I 
know--at least based on press reports--Senator Schumer, Senator Harris, 
and others are considering doing, voting no and not allowing us to get 
on the bill in the first place.
  Well, this is an important moment. We will begin debating this 
legislation on the floor of the Senate next week, and we will 
demonstrate whether we have risen to the challenge, whether we have set 
aside political and partisan differences in order to find the common 
good or not, so I hope our discussions will prove more productive than 
what we have seen reported so far.
  As we continue to try our best to deliver for the American people, I 
encourage all of us to remember the importance of the 80/20 rule. There 
is a lot more that unites us than divides us. I know the news, social 
media, and maybe in our debates we seem to focus on who divides us, but 
that is not who we are, what divides us. We are what unites us. There 
is a lot more that unites us.
  Tomorrow, I will be privileged to be in the city of my birth, 
Houston, TX, with Mayor Sylvester Turner and a number of community 
leaders for a roundtable to talk about these very issues. I was in 
Dallas last week doing the same thing with my friend, the mayor, Eric 
Johnson, and it really a great opportunity to do something that Members 
of the Senate don't do enough, myself included, and that is to listen.
  I am excited to report on what we are doing here, but more 
importantly, I am eager to spend some time listening and learning from 
the people closest to the problem and then bringing that knowledge back 
here to the floor of the U.S. Senate so that we can deliver real 
results for the American people.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for 
Senators Grassley, Portman, Brown, and Cruz to be recognized and 
complete their remarks prior to the confirmation vote on the Walker 
nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional 
material be printed in the Record after my remarks


                           Inspectors General

  Mr. GRASSLEY. In recent months, a lot of attention has focused on the 
Nation's inspectors general. It seems like a good idea to take a few 
minutes now to remember what inspectors general are, why Congress 
created them in the first place, and how we got here.
  Congress first established offices of inspectors general in 1978 ``to 
create independent and objective units'' in the Federal Government to 
do three things: conduct audits and investigations; No. 2, promote 
efficiency and determine fraud and abuse; and No. 3, keep agency heads 
and Congress ``fully informed'' about the problems that IGs find.
  In short, Congress designed inspectors general to shine a bright 
light on waste, fraud, and abuse throughout the Federal bureaucracy 
with the hope that the executive and legislative branches could work 
together to do something about those problems.
  IGs, then, are the original swamp drainers, and--an equally important 
point for those who weren't around at the time it was created--the 
support for creating these offices was breathtakingly bipartisan. The 
vote in the House of Representatives where I was then a Member was 388 
to 6. Now, more than 40 years later, we have 75 offices of inspectors 
general working to stop fraud and abuse.
  Their actions also save the taxpayers billions of dollars. In 2020 so 
far, IGs have identified more than $20 billion of potential savings 
through their audits, reports, and recommendations--$20 billion--and 
this year is not even half over. On oversight.gov, you can find the 
latest figures on these watchdogs' contributions, as well as 
investigative and audit reports on every kind of topic you can think 
of. IGs have found everything from blatant government employee 
misconduct to procurement fraud and, of course, much more. It is all 
there in black and white in the public domain for all to see. These 
inspectors general are helping Congress watch over the people's 
business and ensure the fidelity of agency action.
  We in Congress cannot perform our constitutional mandates of 
oversight without IGs. The IGs' work makes government more transparent 
and more accountable, and that strengthens the public trust in our 
democracy. That is a good thing for Congress and a good thing for the 
Presidency. In this way, these watchdogs serve an indispensable 
function in our system of checks and balances.
  What makes a good inspector general? If I learned anything about 
oversight, it is that this type of work is not for the faint-hearted or 
the thin-skinned or the thick-headed. You need a strong code of 
professionalism to withstand pressures to go along to get along. You 
need a real backbone to wring wrongdoing from the bowels of 
bureaucracy, and you need a quick wit to look on smiling faces and 
discern truths from half-truths and bald-faced lies.
  The law says IGs are supposed to be objective and independent. They 
have to be fierce watchdogs, not lap dogs. They can't bow to personal 
agenda or political machinations, and they shouldn't be subject to 
inappropriate political pressure from any corner whatsoever.
  When IGs are working hard, staying independent, and shining the light 
on waste, fraud, and abuse, they should stay. But when they don't put 
in the work, when they pull the punches, when they became political 
hacks, or when they compromise their vital independence, then IGs must 
go.
  For many years, I have investigated and held accountable IGs from 
both Democratic and Republican administrations for these very failures. 
In 2003, I pushed the Health and Human Services IG to resign over 
whistleblower complaints about poor staff management. I also 
investigated allegations of poor work product, coercive management 
decisions, and questionable hiring practices by the watchdog at the 
Federal Housing Finance Agency. Just last year, I began pushing hard to 
get to the bottom of whistleblower complaints about another apparently 
ineffective Commerce IG, although the media at that time didn't seem to 
care about that despite bipartisan concerns and briefings from my 
staff.

  Alternatively, when IGs come under fire for doing good work, this 
Senator

[[Page S3089]]

has their backs. In 2009, I shined a light on a sudden departure of the 
Amtrak IG, who signed a gag order in exchange for significant payout.
  When the Obama administration blocked a broad swath of the IG 
community from assessing records needed for oversight, I worked across 
the aisle to introduce and finally pass the Inspector General 
Empowerment Act in 2016.
  In short, I have gone to the mat my whole career to ensure inspectors 
general do and are able to accomplish their work with support, 
independence, and integrity. And because this work is so critical to 
Congress and our oversight role and to the public trust, I have worked 
hard to ensure that any effort to remove an IG is for a darn good 
reason. That is what Congress required in the IG Reform Act of 2008, a 
law that then-Senator Obama not only voted for, but he cosponsored.
  That law recognizes two things. First, it is the President's 
constitutional prerogative to manage the executive branch personnel. 
The President can fire an IG. Second, it is Congress's intent in that 
law to support IG independence and maintain public trust. IGs should 
not be removed for blatant political reasons. This requires that 
Presidents tell Congress and the people their reasons for removal of an 
IG.
  The IG Reform Act codified those principles by requiring the 
President to submit to Congress a notice of intent to remove an IG 30 
days in advance and to explain why. The executive branch, under two 
successive Presidencies of both political parties, has sought to ignore 
the law and keep Congress in the dark. Both Presidents provided 
Congress then with paltry excuses of ``lost confidence.''
  In July 2009, less than a year after Congress passed the IG Reform 
Act, then-President Obama removed the inspector general for the 
Corporation for National and Community Service, Gerald Walpin, from his 
post and placed him on administrative leave. Obama's White House 
informed Congress merely that President Obama had lost confidence in 
Mr. Walpin.
  My colleagues and I made it very clear that a vague reference to 
``loss of confidence'' was insufficient and did not satisfy the 
requirements of the very law that President Obama voted for and 
cosponsored when he was a Senator. This began a bout of negotiations 
that resulted in the hold of Presidential nominees and, eventually, a 
bicameral congressional investigation.
  In that case, I pushed for compliance with the statute, held up 
nominees to obtain information, and disagreed with the stated reasons 
for Mr. Walpin's removal. Mr. Walpin was never reinstated. In Mr. 
Walpin's case, a Federal court found later that despite a clear 
congressional record to the contrary, the law doesn't require more than 
what President Obama gave us in any other greater detail beyond its 
``minimal statutory mandate'' to justify the removal of Mr. Walpin.
  Fast forward to the last several months when the current President 
followed the court's incorrect ruling and the Obama precedent by 
removing two Senate-confirmed IGs, placing them on administrative leave 
and telling Congress only, as Obama once did before, that he had lost 
confidence in them.
  In response, I did exactly what I had done before in the Obama 
administration. I, and several colleagues, wrote asking for a better 
explanation. When we finally got a response from the White House 
Counsel, we were left without substantive reasons for the IG's removal.
  So, as before, I notified the majority leader of my intent to object 
to the two administrative nominees until the White House coughed up 
some form of rationale for the removal. I finally got those reasons 
this week. I don't agree with all of them, and I am working to better 
understand others, but because the President has finally fulfilled the 
law, both Congress and the public can look to see for themselves what 
happened.
  This, of course, was the intent of the law all along.
  We took the long road to get here, and we could have avoided all this 
hullabaloo if both Presidents Obama and Trump had just followed the 
statutory notice requirements in the first place, but we are here.
  These episodes have convinced me that the executive branch, 
regardless of what party is in charge, just doesn't get it. From one 
administration to the next, Democrat or Republican, it makes no 
difference to me. This isn't about politics. This is about the 
separation of powers, checks and balances, public trust. It is clear 
that Congress can't rely on any White House to get it right.
  We need to change the law. We need to be clearer, and we need to 
better safeguard the independence of these IGs. That is why I have been 
developing bipartisan reforms to sharpen the independent authority and 
recruitment of those hired and confirmed to serve as inspectors 
general.
  We are not going to enact a clearly unconstitutional law that 
infringes on the President's authority to manage personnel and that 
would surely result in lengthy court battles. But we are going to 
clarify once and for all that the law's notice requirement means that 
Presidents have to give clear, substantive reasons for removing an IG 
and that they can't put an IG on administrative leave without a good 
reason.
  To fully safeguard statutorily required IG independence, we are also 
going to make sure that the President cannot place political appointees 
with clear conflicts of interest into acting IG roles. We can't have 
individuals with political day jobs simultaneously in charge of 
confidential, independent IG matters, including substantive and 
sensitive audits, investigative work, and whistleblower information.
  Today, I have introduced that legislation with my colleagues Senators 
Peters, Collins, Feinstein, Lankford, Carper, Romney, Tester, Portman, 
and Hassan. I want to thank Ranking Member Peters for working with me 
on this. His input has been insightful in crafting this bipartisan 
legislation, and his staff has been diligent in furthering these 
efforts.
  Whether you have been following the important work of inspectors 
general for many years or you just tuned in for the last few, we 
welcome your support. I hope that support continues well past the 
current administration. If we don't update the law, we can only expect 
future administrations to continue to do what has been done lately, not 
giving Congress good reasons
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                              The White House,

                                        Washington, June 12, 2020.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Chairman, Committee on Finance,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Grassley: I write to follow up on our recent 
     conversation regarding the removal of the Inspectors General 
     of the Department of State and of the Intelligence Community. 
     As a further accommodation, we are providing the additional 
     information you requested.
       With respect to the State Department Inspector General, 
     please see the attached letter sent to you today from the 
     Department's Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. The 
     letter includes materials that identify the concerns of the 
     Secretary of State and the Under Secretary for Management 
     with the Inspector General's performance. As to the removal 
     of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the 
     President lost confidence in him and has spoken publicly 
     about this loss of confidence, including on the day after the 
     President notified Congress of his decision.
       As you have stated, the President has the constitutional 
     authority to remove inspectors general. As a matter of 
     accommodation and presidential prerogative, the President 
     complied fully with the statutory notification provision of 
     the Inspector General Act.
       As I said in my previous letter, the President appreciates 
     and respects your longstanding support for the role that 
     inspectors general play. We look forward to the Senate's 
     swift confirmation of all of the President's outstanding 
     inspector general nominees.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Pat A. Cipollone,
     Counsel to the President.
                                  ____

       The following excerpt from an official White House 
     transcript entitled ``Remarks by President Trump, Vice 
     President Pence, and members of the Coronavirus Task Force in 
     Press Briefing.'' The briefing was held on April 4, 2020 in 
     the James S. Brady Press Room of the White House at 4:15 p.m. 
     EDT.
       The full transcript can be found at: https://
www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-0906-
12%20White%20House%20Counsel%
     20 to%20Grassley%20-%20 IC%20IG%20and%
     20 State%20IG.pdf

       THE PRESIDENT: Think of it: We're paying people not to go 
     to work. How about that? How does that play?
       Q: I understand that.
       THE PRESIDENT: And they want to go to work, by the way. 
     They don't even want--they don't want money. This country is

[[Page S3090]]

     great. But we're paying people. We have to get back to work. 
     That's what I'm saying.
       Go ahead, please.
       Q: Mr. President, this is off topic. It's about the 
     announcement from last night. It's a yes or no question, but 
     not that we expect the answer to be yes or no.
       But wasn't Michael Atkinson doing the job of the Inspector 
     General of the intelligence community, the job he was 
     supposed to do, when he simply took the whistleblower 
     complaint to Congress that hadn't been taken previously? 
     Wasn't he doing the job that he was supposed to do, that 
     American taxpayers were paying him to do? And why did you 
     decide to terminate--
       THE PRESIDENT: I thought he did a terrible job. Absolutely 
     terrible. He took a whistleblower report, which turned out to 
     be a fake report--it was fake. It was totally wrong. It was 
     about my conversation with the President of Ukraine. He took 
     a fake report and he brought it to Congress, with an 
     emergency. Okay? Not a big Trump fan--that, I can tell you.
       Instead of saying--and we offered this to him: ``No, no, we 
     will take the conversation''--where, fortunately, we had that 
     transcript. If we didn't have a transcript with the kind of 
     deception and dishonesty that were practiced by the 
     Democrats, I might not be standing here right now. Okay? 
     Fortunately, we had a transcript and it was a perfect 
     transcript, because even the lieutenant colonel admitted it 
     was correct. Okay?
       Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You asked a question.
       So he took this whistleblower--and I keep saying, ``Where's 
     the whistleblower?'' Right? ``And why was the whistleblower 
     allowed to do this?'' Why was he allowed to be--you call it 
     fraudulent or incorrect transcript.
       So we offered this IG--I don't know him; I don't think I 
     ever met him. I don't think I--he never even came in to see 
     me. How can you do that without seeing the person? Never came 
     in to see me. Never requested to see me. He took this 
     terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report--right?--and he 
     brought it to Congress.
       We offered to have him see my exact conversation. It was 
     all about the conversation, by the way. That was the whole 
     thing, was about the conversation. Right? And then after he 
     saw it, he must've said, ``Wow,'' because as I've said it 
     many times and it drives you people crazy, it was a perfect 
     conversation.
       So instead of going and saying, ``Gee, this is a terrible 
     thing he said about the President's conversation''--well, it 
     was a fraud. I didn't say that. And, by the way, you have the 
     whistleblower. Where's the informer? Right?
       And here's another question: Remember before I did the--
     before I gave the transcript--in other words, before I 
     revealed the real conversation--where's the second 
     whistleblower? Remember the second whistle--
       Wait, wait, wait, wait. There was going to be a second 
     whistleblower. But after I gave the conversation, he just 
     went away. He miraculously went away.
       Where's the informer? Because there was going to be this 
     informer. Maybe Schiff was the informer. You ever think of 
     that? He's a corrupt guy. He's a corrupt politician.
       So, listen, I say this: Where's the informer? Remember, the 
     informer was coming forward. But I gave--because, see, I did 
     one thing that surprised everybody. This gentleman right here 
     said, ``Boy, that was a shocker.'' I revealed the 
     conversation. I got approval from Ukraine because I didn't 
     want to do it without their approval. And they said, 
     ``Absolutely. You did nothing wrong.''
       By the way, President of Ukraine, Foreign Minister said, 
     ``He did nothing wrong.'' And over that, with 196 to nothing 
     vote by the Republicans--not one dissenting Republican vote--
     dishonest Democrats impeached a President of the United 
     States. That man is a disgrace to IGs.
       All right, let's go. Next. Please. He's a total disgrace.
       Q: Mr. President, did you run by your decision to dismiss 
     the Inspector General by Senator McConnell?
       THE PRESIDENT: Okay, we'll get off this because people want 
     to talk about what we're talking about. But let me just tell 
     you something: That's my decision. I have the absolute right. 
     Even the fake news last night said, ``He has the absolute 
     right to do it.''
       But ask him, ``Why didn't you go and see the actual 
     conversation?'' There was no rush. He said, ``Oh we'd have to 
     rush it.'' He even said it was politically biased. He 
     actually said that. The report could have been--you know who 
     the whistleblower is, and so do you and so does everybody in 
     this room, and so do I. Everybody knows. But they give this 
     whistleblower a status that he doesn't deserve. He's a fake 
     whistleblower. And, frankly, somebody ought to sue his ass 
     off.
       Q: I just want to follow up, sir.
       THE PRESIDENT: All right, it's enough with the 
     whistleblower.
       Go ahead, please.
       Q: Mr. President, the governor of New York today said that 
     he is still desperate for ventilators and that he has 
     accepted 1,000 of them from the Chinese government. Are you 
     concerned that states--
       THE PRESIDENT: Well, what he didn't say is--okay, let me 
     tell you what he didn't say.
       Two very good friends of mine brought him those 
     whistleblower--brought him those ventilators, right? Two very 
     good friends of mine--they brought them. If you'd like their 
     name, I'll give you their name.
       Q: But should states and cities have to rely on--
       THE PRESIDENT: No, but he--the governor didn't--
       Q: --China and Russia for supplies?
       THE PRESIDENT: --mention that. It came through the 
     Chinese--the country of China. But they were given by two 
     friends of mine, but he didn't tell you that.
       Now, the governor also--
       Q Who are your friends?
       THE PRESIDENT: You'll see when you read the letter.
       The governor also asked for 40,000--40,000. He wanted 
     40,000 ventilators.
       Now, the governor, as you know, had a chance to get 16,000 
     a few years ago. He decided not to get that. The State of New 
     York has asked for help. I've given him four hospitals, four 
     medical centers. Then I gave him an additional hospital. Then 
     I gave him military people to operate the hospital. They were 
     not supposed to be COVID hospitals. The boat--the ship is 
     not--an interesting thing happened with the ship. People 
     aren't in accidents because there's nobody driving. There's 
     nobody taking motorcycle rides down the West Side Highway at 
     100 miles an hour. People are away. So people aren't being 
     injured.
       Now they're asking whether or not we could open up the ship 
     for COVID. We have given the governor of New York more than 
     anybody has ever been given in a long time. I'll just say--I 
     was going to say ``in history,'' but in a long time. And I 
     think he's happy.
       But I think that--because I watched what he said today, and 
     it was fine. I wouldn't say gracious. It wasn't gracious. It 
     was okay. I must tell you, Gavin Newsom has been gracious--
     Los Angeles, California, the job we've done, and all of 
     California.
       Q: But why does that matter if they're gracious or not 
     gracious if they need the supplies?
       THE PRESIDENT: It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. But I 
     think when we've given as much as we've given to New York, 
     somebody should say--
       Nice--I'll tell you who's been very nice: Mayor de Blasio 
     has been very nice. He understands what we've given him. We 
     brought him some more ventilators, too, yesterday.
       But nobody has been given like New York. And I think--I 
     know he appreciates it. He just can't quite get the words 
     out, but that's okay.
       Q: So when he says--but when he says that he needs 40,000--
       Q: Mr. President--
       THE PRESIDENT: Please, go ahead.


                          The First Amendment

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 3 weeks, America will celebrate 
Independence Day. For 244 years, Americans have fought, marched, voted, 
petitioned, legislated, published, protested, and died to defend and 
build our blessings of freedom. The American experiment has plenty of 
battle scars and growing pains handed down from one generation to the 
next.
  The first half of 2020 shows us there are plenty of historical wounds 
to heal and challenges to overcome.
  In the interest of public health, stay-at-home orders limited 
individual freedoms that many Americans take for granted, including the 
right to earn a living or to worship with fellow believers.
  Just as the economy began to reopen, the shadows of racial injustice 
darkened America's doorstep. All people are created equal, but not all 
people are treated equally.
  The unconscionable suffocation of George Floyd at the knee of a 
police officer in Minneapolis struck a chord of unity to end racism in 
America. Hundreds of thousands of people have gathered to exercise 
their First Amendment rights. They march to protect racial injustice 
and police brutality.
  Unfortunately, some exploited the peaceful protests to riot, loot, 
vandalize, and burn. These criminal acts were not protected by the 
Constitution. It is obvious they weren't protected. They were 
antithetical to the laws of the land protecting life, liberty, and 
domestic tranquility.
  All of this led one of my colleagues, the junior Senator from 
Arkansas, to submit an essay to the New York Times. In his opinion 
piece, he advocated why he thought the President ought to use his 
authority to deploy Active-Duty military forces to uphold the law and 
public order, as had been done by Presidents in past instances of civil 
unrest.
  The Times op-ed pages accepted his column and published it online 
under the headline: ``Bring in the Troops.''
  Within hours, the newsroom was in a frenzy. The leftwing rallied 
their troops to stop the press. The New York Times, as we know, prides 
itself as the ``paper of record.''
  Since 1851, it has served as an influential platform to gather and 
report the news and to hold government accountable. Policemen keep the 
public peace. Journalists are the policemen of

[[Page S3091]]

our political system to keep the political system honest and open and 
transparent.
  The New York Times opinion pages ostensibly provide a space for the 
free exchange of ideas and thought-filled conversation on issues of the 
day. I have long counted journalists as the constables of the fourth 
estate. They serve a very vital role in bolstering our system of checks 
and balances. They have a responsibility to set the tone for open 
dialogue.
  Last week, the New York Times flunked this standard. The Gray Lady 
ghosted Senator Cotton's opinion piece after a meltdown in its ivory 
tower and when the ivory tower workforce hyperventilated.
  It is certainly reasonable to disagree on the merits and to debate if 
recent events rise to the level of past riots that justified invoking 
the Insurrection Act.
  I certainly think we should be hesitant to deploy our military forces 
domestically, even in difficult situations.
  But the overheated reaction by alleged journalists even to have this 
debate raises the question, Do they consider themselves neutral 
reporters or activists for a certain world view?
  Even a casual reader is able to read between the lines and know that 
the New York Times ascribes to a left-leaning ideology, but the mutiny 
in their newsroom seems to cross the line from journalism with a 
leftwing bias to political activism and ideological conformity.
  Sadly, last week the New York Times lowered the bar of journalistic 
integrity. It snubbed a voice of dissent and rebuked the free exchange 
of ideas.
  The First Amendment protects five fundamental freedoms that sets 
America apart as the leader of the free world: freedom of religion, 
speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government.
  The Constitution does so because the expression of diverse opinions 
is necessary to preserve liberty.
  Within 4 days of publishing Senator Cotton's commentary, the New York 
Times caved to an ideological revolt in the newsroom.
  Under mob rule, the casualty among its ranks was none other than the 
editorial page editor. He was forced out of his job for having the 
audacity to publish an opinion of a U.S. Senator.
  At first, the publisher made a feeble effort to stand on principle, 
defending, in his words, ``openness and a range of opinions.'' Within a 
few days, the publisher threw James Bennet under the bus.
  It is a sad day for journalism, a sad day for the free press. These 
actions damage the wall dividing the newsroom and the opinion desk. 
They solidified their silo of leftwing thought. Canceling dissenting 
views is a very slippery slope. Sooner or later, it mutes the exchange 
of ideas in a free society.
  As a student of history, I know that freedom has often been 
threatened by those who are convinced their views were on the right 
side of history.
  I offer a bit of wisdom without malice to the New York Times: Don't 
back down from the First Amendment. Swapping your free press for party-
line propaganda and punishing dissent is not a good look. Ask the 
people of North Korea, China, and Iran.
  On Independence Day 2020, I encourage members of the media and all 
Americans to step out of your comfort zones and seek to understand 
other viewpoints.
  Before we can expand America's promise, end racism, and beat the 
virus, we must come together as Americans. No matter one's race, 
politic, creed, wealth, celebrity, remember, we are bound together by 
self-evident truths ``that all men are created equal, that they are 
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among 
these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.''
  I want even a leftwing newspaper to be a responsible policeman for 
our political system.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Before Senator Portman and I do our unanimous consent, I 
just can't believe what I heard.
  Senator Grassley, going to the floor and talking about the media that 
way, when his majority--they owe their majority to Rush Limbaugh and 
FOX News, and they swear allegiance to a President of the United States 
who has lied thousands of times and then attacks the media every time 
they disagree with him or call him out, attacks the media as fake news, 
is just shocking to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio

                          ____________________