July 1, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 121 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S4084-S4102]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

    NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 4049, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the following:

       A bill (S. 4049) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2021 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Inhofe amendment No. 2301, in the nature of a substitute.
       McConnell (for Portman) amendment No. 2080 (to amendment 
     No. 2301), to require an element in annual reports on cyber 
     science and technology activities on work with academic 
     consortia on high priority cybersecurity research activities 
     in Department of Defense capabilities.

                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.

[[Page S4085]]

  



                     American Workforce Rescue Act

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, this morning, I have come to the floor 
with Senators Wyden and Bennet to talk about a really bold new idea to 
extend enhanced unemployment assistance for as long as economic 
conditions in the country warrant it. I will speak about that 
legislation more in a moment, but first, two other issues.


                                S. 4049

  Madam President, first, last night President Trump threatened to veto 
the National Defense Authorization Act--the bill on the floor this 
week--because it contains a provision to rename military bases named 
after Confederate generals.
  Let me make a prediction. First, that provision will not change in 
this bill as it moves through the House and Senate. Second, let me 
predict that President Trump will not veto a bill that contains pay 
raises for our troops and crucial support for our military. This is 
nothing but typical bluster from President Trump. The NDAA will pass, 
and we will scrub from our military bases the names of men who fought 
for the Confederacy and took up arms against our country.


                              Coronavirus

  Madam President, on a second matter, before I get to the main topic 
of this morning, all week, Democrats have been trying to force action 
on the Senate floor to make progress on crucial issues related to the 
COVID-19 pandemic. As Senate Republicans continue to mindlessly delay 
the next round of COVID-19 relief, we have tried day after day to jolt 
the Senate into action. Last night, we made notable progress.
  In the late hours of last evening, we were able to pass a monthlong 
extension of the Payment Protection Program, whose loan authority 
expired at midnight with over $130 billion left in the program. We had 
to force our Republican colleagues to act on this very simple and 
noncontroversial extension--a date change--to help small businesses 
across America, particularly underserved businesses, minority-owned 
businesses that had trouble accessing the PPP program in its early 
days.
  Throughout the day, we heard, to our surprise, that our Republican 
friends might block the legislation, but when the time came, Senator 
Cardin's consent request was agreed to. It certainly is something to 
celebrate, but I would have hoped that our two parties could have 
worked this out before last night as a small part of much broader 
legislation to address the many challenges posed by COVID-19 rather 
than a consent request forcing the Republicans to act.
  But Senate Republicans, unfortunately, seem dead-set on delaying 
almost any action on COVID-19 until after July, after they have had 
time, in the words of Leader McConnell, ``to assess the conditions in 
the country.'' The obstruction is deeply regrettable and impossible--
impossible--to explain.
  We have other deadlines before us, not just the PPP. Today is July 1. 
With the first of the month comes a new rent payment for millions of 
American families who have lost their jobs through no fault of their 
own. Senate Democrats, led by Ranking Member Sherrod Brown, are going 
to ask the Senate to pass rental assistance and an extension on the 
moratorium on evictions. Will Senate Republicans agree to our request 
or leave millions of renters out in the cold?
  I would say to my Republican friends, let the extension of the PPP 
program be a metaphor. Democrats are going to keep pressing for Senate 
action on COVID-19-related issues. Let the Republican response be quick 
and generous, not stingy and halting. Senate Republicans are going to 
have to respond one way or the other and either support urgent and 
necessary pieces of legislation or explain to their constituents why 
they are blocking them. It would be far better to pass these measures 
earlier rather than later and be more generous rather than stingy
  (The remarks of Mr. Schumer, Mr. Wyden and Mr. Bennet pertaining to 
the introduction of S. 4143 are printed in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 6

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning on an 
issue that is topical. It is an issue that, over the last several days, 
has become a national centerpiece of conversation.
  It reflects a decision of just a few days ago by the Supreme Court 
that rejected President Trump's efforts to repeal deportation 
protections for Dreamers--young immigrants who came to the United 
States as children. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the 
Court held that the President's decision to rescind DACA, the Deferred 
Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, was ``arbitrary and 
capricious.''
  It was 10 years ago that I joined with Republican Senator Dick Lugar, 
of Indiana, on a bipartisan basis, to call on President Obama and beg 
him to use his legal authority to protect Dreamers from deportation. 
President Obama responded by creating the Deferred Action for Childhood 
Arrivals Program, known as DACA. It provided for Dreamers temporary 
protection from deportation--2 years at a time--if they registered with 
the government, paid substantial fees, and passed criminal and national 
security background checks. More than 800,000 Dreamers came forward and 
received DACA protection.
  DACA unleashed the full potential of these Dreamers, who are 
contributing to our Nation in a variety of ways--as soldiers, as 
teachers, as nurses, as small business owners. More than 200,000 DACA 
recipients are currently ``essential critical infrastructure workers.'' 
That is not my term. It is the way President Trump's Department of 
Homeland Security describes the work of these DACA recipients now--
200,000 of them ``essential critical infrastructure workers.'' Among 
those DACA recipients, 41,700 of them are in the healthcare industry. 
This includes doctors, intensive care nurses, paramedics, and 
respiratory therapists. They are the healthcare heroes we salute, and 
at the same time, they are the DACA recipients this President loathes.
  On September 5, 2017, President Trump repealed DACA. Hundreds of 
thousands of Dreamers faced losing their work permits and faced being 
deported to countries many of them barely remembered, if they 
remembered at all. Thankfully, the Supreme Court stepped in and 
rejected that strategy by President Trump.
  What was the President's reaction?
  To no surprise, the President responded by attacking the Court and 
threatening to try to repeal DACA, even again, in the closing months of 
his first term.
  Congress must step in immediately.
  After that Supreme Court decision, President Trump tweeted, ``I have 
wanted to take care of DACA recipients better than the Do Nothing 
Democrats, but for two years they refused to negotiate.''
  Here is the reality. The President has rejected numerous bipartisan 
proposals to deal with DACA and the Dreamers.
  May I be specific?
  On February 15, 2018, the Senate considered bipartisan legislation 
that was offered by Republican Senator Mike Rounds and Independent 
Senator Angus King--a bipartisan measure. The bill, which included a 
path to citizenship for Dreamers, was supported by a bipartisan 
majority of the Senate. Why did it fail to reach 60 votes? Because 
President Trump openly opposed it. That is why. He said: I have a 
better idea.
  On the same day that the Senate voted on the President's immigration 
proposal, we found his so-called ``better idea'' failed by a bipartisan 
supermajority of 39 to 60.
  On June 4, 2019, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6--on June 
4, 2019, which was more than a year ago. H.R. 6, the Dream and Promise 
Act, is legislation that would give Dreamers a path to citizenship, and 
it passed the House with a strong bipartisan vote.
  The Dream and Promise Act has been pending in the Senate for more 
than a year. I have come to the floor, day after day, and heard the 
Republican leader, Senator McConnell, bemoaning the fact that we are so 
busy here in the Senate and that the House just isn't doing its work. 
Yet the House has sent some 400 pieces of legislation to Senator 
McConnell's desk--90 percent of it bipartisan. He refuses to consider 
it. He refuses to bring it to this empty

[[Page S4086]]

Senate floor so that we can do our work. One of those measures, sadly, 
is the Dream and Promise Act--the bill that would solve at least part 
of the immigration challenge we now face in America. Last week, I sent 
a letter, signed by all 47 Democratic Senators, calling on Senator 
McConnell to immediately schedule a vote after the Supreme Court 
decision. As of today, the Senator has not replied.
  Over the years, I have decided that the only way to tell the story of 
the Dreamers and the story of DACA is to introduce them here in the 
Senate. I have asked them to come forward, if they wish, provide me 
with photographs, and let me tell their stories. This is the 124th 
story I am going to tell. It is the story of a remarkable young woman 
named Cinthya Ramirez.

  Cinthya Ramirez came to the United States from Mexico at the age of 
4. She grew up in Nashville, TN. She wrote me a letter. Here is what 
she wrote about growing up:

       Moving to the United States gave me the gift of education. 
     I learned English by the first grade, and that is when I 
     learned that I loved school and I loved learning.

  While in high school, Cinthya was on the track team and was a student 
council representative and a great student. She graduated at the top of 
her high school class with the highest honors. Cinthya went to Lipscomb 
University, which is a private Christian college in Nashville, and she 
graduated with a nursing degree. Today, thanks to DACA, Cinthya works 
as a cardiac registered nurse at Vanderbilt University Medical Center--
the largest hospital in Nashville, TN. Cinthya is on the frontline of 
the COVID-19 pandemic.
  Here is what she writes about this experience:

       I am a very spiritual person, and I pray a lot. I remind 
     myself that this is the job that I was meant to have. If the 
     time comes for patients to die and they cannot have their 
     families with them, we have to be there for them.

  Cinthya's greatest fear is that of bringing the coronavirus home to 
her family when she comes home after her nursing shifts at the 
hospital.
  Here is what she writes:

       I take every precaution before entering the house. I take 
     off my clothes, clean my phone, go straight to the shower. 
     The rest is in the hands of God.

  I thank Cinthya Ramirez--a DACA recipient--for her service. She is an 
immigrant healthcare hero. She is a DACA healthcare hero. She is 
putting herself and her family at risk to save the lives of others. She 
should also not have to wake up every morning in fear that actions 
taken by the Trump administration will lead to her being deported back 
to a country she can barely, if at all, remember.
  This is a classic example of this debate and what it is about--and to 
think that, in a year, we have not even taken up this issue that was 
sent to us by the House while it winds its way through our judicial 
process all the way to the highest Court in the land, where the ruling 
was in favor of Cinthya and the DACA recipients who have this 
protection.
  In that year, did we step forward in the U.S. Senate--the so-called 
greatest deliberative body on Earth--to even debate the bill that 
passed the House of Representatives? No. No, there was no time for 
that. As you can see, we are so busy here on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate.
  There is so much more that we could do here. Shouldn't we start with 
the highest priority--protecting Americans in the midst of this 
pandemic?
  This woman, Cinthya Ramirez--undocumented, protected by DACA--risks 
her life every single day because of this pandemic. Can we risk 
ourselves politically for a minute in the Senate and actually take up a 
measure that could have a direct impact on the lives of the 800,000 
DACA recipients and the thousands of others who could have applied for 
that protection during the months that we have debated this in court?
  Sadly, we have been unable to do that, and it is all because of a 
decision being made by the President of the United States and by the 
Republican majority leader, and it is a decision which needs to be 
addressed directly.
  In a few moments, I am going to offer a unanimous consent request, 
when it comes to moving this bill, that was sent over by the House of 
Representatives more than a year ago. I am really going to call the 
bluff of this President, who asks: Why doesn't Congress act? Why don't 
you come up with a bipartisan proposal?
  Mr. President, here is our chance. Here is an opportunity.
  We have a bill that has been sitting here for a year that would 
address Cinthya Ramirez's future and the future of thousands of others. 
The question is whether or not the Members on the other side of the 
aisle, on the Republican side of the aisle, will at least let us 
address this issue now.
  Give us an opportunity to bring before the U.S. Senate a measure 
which is no surprise, nothing revolutionary or new. It is a measure we 
have considered in various forms over the last 20 years, but it is a 
measure that would address this issue and do it in a thoughtful way.
  This is an opportunity which we should seize. Wouldn't it be 
remarkable, maybe a headliner, if the Senate actually did something--if 
we actually took an issue of the day that affected real people, real 
lives, in the middle of this coronavirus epidemic and actually decided 
that this young woman and thousands like her were worth the effort
  I think America would be shocked that this U.S. Senate responded that 
way, and don't tell me we have better things to do. I am all for doing 
the military authorization bill. We can get that done and be back in 2 
weeks and take this up immediately. We know the bill is here. We know 
that the bill is prepared and covers the areas that would protect this 
young lady and so many others and give them a future in the United 
States of America. At this point, it is really up to us.
  Now, there may be an objection when I make this unanimous consent 
request. Listen carefully to the objection. It has nothing to do with 
resolving the issue before us--the issue of the future of this young 
woman and thousands of others just like her.
  But we are in a position at this moment where we have to act. I am 
awaiting the arrival of a Republican Member, who I hope is on the way, 
and so at this point I am going to suspend and yield the floor with the 
hopes that we can return to another colleague coming to the floor 
momentarily.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I am here to urge my colleagues on the 
Republican side not to object--follow last night's example and allow 
this simple, humane, and good-for-our-economy amendment to go forward.
  First, I want to salute Senator Durbin. There has been no voice--no 
voice of any elected official whom I know who has had a stronger, 
longer, and more passionate defense of the DACA kids, many of whom are 
now adults.
  And he has pricked the conscience of the Nation so that now the DACA 
kids and their families are, really, by most Americans respected and by 
many Americans just loved. I am one of those in the latter category. I 
love these kids and their families.
  I have watched them, on the frontlines during the coronavirus crisis 
in New York, risk their lives, even though they are not allowed to be 
full Americans, to help.
  Now we have an opportunity here to simply say: Stop harassing them. 
Let them do their jobs. Let them live their lives. Let them be with 
their families here in America so they can help us in our economy 
recover from COVID, as they have been doing, without looking over their 
shoulder and worrying about being deported or having one of their 
family members being deported every 5 minutes.
  It is such an important amendment. It is so good for the country. The 
idea that immigrants are bad for America, that DACA kids are bad for 
America, is a regressive, nativist, and often bigoted idea that some 
use for political purposes, but nothing, nothing, nothing could be 
further from the truth.
  So I urge my colleagues not to object to Senator Durbin's fine 
amendment to help America live up to its ideals and

[[Page S4087]]

its dreams. That lady in the harbor in the city in which I live--``Give 
me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe 
free''--that has been part of the American fabric for centuries.
  This is a chance to bring us back to that fabric, that wonderful 
fabric that has been so good for our country for those centuries.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague and friend 
Senator Schumer. We have been fighting this battle for a long time, 
Senator.
  Eight of us who came, four Democrats and four Republicans, put 
together a comprehensive immigration reform bill which should have 
passed 7 years ago--68 votes on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It was a 
bipartisan measure, which we joined with Senator McCain to put together 
to bring to the floor.
  I thank you for your heartfelt comments.
  I am going to speak a little longer and make a unanimous consent 
request.
  This measure I am asking for unanimous consent on, the American Dream 
and Promise Act, was introduced by Representative Lucille Roybal-
Allard, Democrat of California, on March 12, 2019, with 202 original 
cosponsors.
  It would provide Dreamers, temporary protected status recipients, and 
individuals with deferred enforcement departure with protection from 
deportation and an opportunity to obtain permanent legal status in the 
United States if they meet certain requirements.
  It passed the House of Representatives 237 to 187--7 Republicans 
joined the 230 Democrats who were present to support the legislation.
  Protections in the American Dream and Promise Act would allow nearly 
700,000 DACA recipients, as well as another 1.6 million eligible 
Dreamers brought to the United States as children to stay in our 
country legally.
  The bill's protections would also allow over 300,000 temporary 
protected status holders and 3,600 individuals that I described earlier 
with the same opportunity.
  It would create a conditional permanent resident status valid for up 
to 10 years that would protect Dreamers, including DACA, from 
deportation and allow them to work legally in the United States. 
Cinthya Ramirez could continue working as a nurse long after this 
pandemic is gone.
  To qualify for this, the Dreamers would need to meet requirements. 
They must have come to the United States before the age of 18--she came 
at the age of 4--and continuously lived here for at least 4 years.
  They must demonstrate they have been admitted to an institution of 
higher education, earned a high school diploma or equivalent, or are 
currently in the process of doing that. She is a graduate of Lipscomb 
University with a degree in nursing.
  They must pass government and background security checks, submit 
biometric and biographic data, demonstrate good character with no 
felonies, misdemeanor offenses of domestic violence, or multiple 
misdemeanor convictions, and they must register for the Selective 
Service, if applicable--she has already met all these standards by the 
examination she has been put through for DACA--and, of course, pay 
their application fee.
  DACA recipients and other DACA-eligible Dreamers who still meet the 
requirements needed to obtain DACA would automatically qualify for 
conditional permanent resident status.
  When the President ended DACA in September of 2017, we stopped 
accepting applications from those who were eligible. Now these young 
people would have the chance, if they meet the requirements and the 
test that is required of them.
  They must complete one of three tracks: graduate from college or 
university or complete at least 2 years of a bachelor's or higher 
degree program in the United States; complete at least 2 years of 
honorable military service or have worked for a period totaling at 
least 3 years while having valid employment authorization; maintain 
continuous residence in the country; demonstrate an ability to read, 
write, speak English; understand American history, principles, and form 
of government.
  It is a high standard, but it is one they are prepared to meet and 
they should meet to become part of America's future.
  How important are they? Well, they are extremely important in every 
single State. We know that there are some 780,000 DACA recipients 
across the United States. There are 109,000 of them in the State of 
Texas--109,000. The average age of arrival for them is 7. They came 
here as kids. Their annual tax contributions are in the millions. I 
could read the numbers.
  In the State of Texas, there are 30,000 of these DACA recipients who 
have been characterized by the Trump administration as essential 
workers--30,000--4,300 DACA healthcare workers in the State of Texas.
  The States of Texas, Arizona, California, Florida, and others are 
going through a resurgence of infection and death from this pandemic. 
These DACA young people--many of them are on the frontline fighting 
this disease, as Cinthya Rameriz is in Tennessee.
  The notion that we want them to leave now--4,300 leave Texas now--
healthcare workers? Unimaginable. It makes no sense.
  It is time for us to do something. At a minimum, for goodness' sake, 
in this empty Chamber, can we come together and debate this issue?
  The President has challenged us to do it. Let's do it--not be afraid 
of it. Put it through an amendment process on the floor. I have lived 
through that before. It actually would resemble the U.S. Senate, which 
many people remember from the history books, where people actually came 
to deliberate and vote on amendments. That is all we are asking for. 
Bring this under unanimous consent to the floor. Let's do it. The 
President has challenged us.
  I am going to make a unanimous consent request. I see the Senator 
from Texas is on the floor here, and I want to make sure I get the 
right copy. Here it is.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 112, H.R. 6, the American 
Dream and Promise Act; further, that the bill be considered read a 
third time and passed; 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 Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  You know, someone watching this at home might think that Senate 
Democrats want to actually enact amnesty for the so-called DACA 
recipients. Of course, they could have done so earlier.
  President Trump offered Senate Democrats a deal that would have 
granted permanent amnesty for all the DACA recipients, and the 
Democrats turned it down. They didn't want the deal. They hoped, 
instead, to have an issue in November.
  You know, we are right now in a time of crisis in our country. We 
have a global pandemic, and we have 44 million Americans out of work. 
This is, on the economic side, the greatest crisis our country has seen 
since the Great Depression.
  Yet what we are seeing in the Senate is a continuation of something 
we have seen for several years, which is that today's Democratic Party 
doesn't value working men and women--American working men and women.
  Last week, we saw a decision from the Supreme Court of the United 
States on amnesty. It was a particularly disgraceful opinion. 
Unfortunately, it was authored by Chief Justice Roberts; it was joined 
by the four liberals; and it concerned President Obama's illegal 
amnesty.
  DACA, when it was issued, was illegal. Actually, for years, President 
Obama admitted that. When activists asked him: Will you decree amnesty 
unilaterally, as an executive, he told them over and over again: I 
can't do that. I am bound by Federal immigration laws. I am not a King. 
I am not an Emperor. That is what President Obama said repeatedly.
  But then as the election approached, I guess they reassessed and 
decided that being a King or Emperor sounded pretty good, and so DACA, 
the day it was issued, was directly contrary to law.

[[Page S4088]]

  Federal immigration law says in the statute books that if you are 
here illegally, it is illegal for you to stay, to get work permits, and 
the Obama administration ignored Federal immigration law and simply 
printed what were called work authorizations.
  My friend from Illinois has a picture of a lovely young lady whom he 
has spoken about.
  What he doesn't have a picture of is what happened after Executive 
amnesty was granted for those who came illegally as kids, which is that 
the number of unaccompanied children skyrocketed.
  In the State of Texas I have been down to the border many, many 
times. I have visited with the Border Patrol many, many times. You 
know, when you go online, you see cages with children in them. What 
many of the people online don't tell you is that it was the Barack 
Obama administration that built those cages, and it was Executive 
amnesty that resulted in tens of thousands of little boys and little 
girls being sent alone with violent drug traffickers, with coyotes. Far 
too many of those kids were physically assaulted and sexually 
assaulted. You are not helping children by incentivizing little boys 
and little girls being in the hands of violent traffickers. That is not 
humane. I have seen child after child after child abused by this 
system, and every time the Democrats offer more amnesty, the 
predictable result is that more children are going to be physically and 
sexually assaulted. Amnesty is wrong.
  It is also the wrong priority of today's Democratic Party. Their 
priority is on people here illegally and not on American workers, not 
on keeping American workers safe.
  What we should be doing--and in just a moment, I am going to ask 
unanimous consent for this body to take up and pass Kate's Law. I am 
the author of Kate's Law in the Senate. Kate's Law is named for Kate 
Steinle, a beautiful young woman in California who was murdered on a 
California pier by an illegal immigrant who had come into this country 
illegally over and over and over again. He had multiple violent 
criminal convictions over and over and over again, but our revolving-
door system kept letting him out.
  As Kate Steinle died on that California pier, her father held his 
daughter in his arms, and her last words were ``Daddy, please help 
me.''
  I have had the opportunity to visit with Kate Steinle's family. What 
happened to her was wrong. It shouldn't happen, and the reason it 
happens is that our broken system keeps letting go violent criminal 
illegal aliens. What does Kate's Law provide? Commonsense legislation 
that says aggravated felons--people with serious felony convictions--
who repeatedly enter the country illegally face a mandatory minimum 
prison sentence; in other words, we are not going to let them out and 
allow them out to commit murders, rapes, and assaults. We are not going 
to let them out to abuse and threaten children.
  Kate's Law is overwhelmingly bipartisan common sense. If you go into 
the great State of Illinois and ask the voters of Illinois ``Does 
Kate's Law make sense?'' overwhelmingly, they say yes. That is true in 
every State in the country.
  By the way, it is true of voters who aren't just Republicans. It is 
true of Democrats, and it is true of Independents. It is true of 
everyone except the 47 elected Democrats in this Chamber and their 
colleagues in the House of Representatives because the reason Kate's 
Law is not the law is that every time I have tried to bring it up, the 
Democrats have objected to it.
  If Kate's Law had been on the books, Kate Steinle would still be 
alive because the violent criminal who kept coming in over and over and 
over again illegally would have been in jail instead of murdering that 
young woman.
  Amnesty is wrong. Illegal Executive amnesty is wrong, and we need to 
have as our first priority protecting the American workers and keeping 
the American people safe.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it my understanding that the Senator 
from Texas was going to offer a consent request.
  Mr. CRUZ. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I think this is the moment to do it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--Kate's Law

  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Kate's Law, which is at the 
desk.
  I ask unanimous consent 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. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, listen carefully to what we just heard 
from the Senator from Texas. First he talked about amnesty. Amnesty as 
I understand it is a blanket forgiveness for the commission of a crime.
  Cinthya Ramirez has DACA--the DACA protection that I described--2 
years at a time. She was brought here to the United States from Mexico 
at the age of 4. She has paid her fee, has gone through her background 
check, and receives 2-year protections to continue in this country. 
According to the Senator from Texas, that is amnesty for a crime--
amnesty for a criminal. It is certainly not that.
  This young woman has been as open with our government as she could 
possibly be, and for it she has received 2 years at a time to build a 
life, and what a life she has built. Undocumented and uncertain of her 
future, a person who is doomed by the Trump administration's policy 
finishes her medical education in nursing school at Lipscomb 
University, a Christian college in Nashville, and works at one of the 
best hospitals in the whole region, saving the lives of people who are 
facing COVID-19, and in the eyes of the Senator from Texas, she is just 
another criminal looking for amnesty. Really? I am sorry, that doesn't 
add up. It doesn't add up at all
  To say today that because we are seeking help on DACA, Democrats do 
not value American workers--another statement made by the Senator from 
Texas--may I remind the Senator that all of the people we are talking 
about in the DACA Program are currently in the United States legally 
working because of DACA? It is not as if they are taking jobs away by 
coming into this country and displacing others. Many of them are 
unemployed because of the economy too. She is doing work people are 
afraid to do, exposing herself to the coronavirus every single day.
  You heard the routine she goes through when she comes home from work: 
taking off her clothing, rushing into a shower, washing off her cell 
phone, cleaning it before she sees her family. This is a person who is 
a criminal? She is a criminal for what she does, Cinthya Ramirez--
really? I don't understand the thinking.
  To call the decision last week--the week before--before the Supreme 
Court disgraceful is to say that she should have no chance. She should 
be gone. What has she got to offer to the United States of America, to 
the State of Tennessee, to our future? She has a lot to offer, and most 
Americans, even an overwhelming majority of Republicans, get that part 
of it.
  Now the Senator comes before us today with a consistent record on 
Dreamers. Every moment that he has been in the U.S. Senate, whenever he 
has been given a chance--whenever--to help the Dreamers or to help 
DACA, the junior Senator from Texas has voted no, time and time and 
time again. He is consistent. Bless him for his consistency.
  Today he is not even offering an alternative that would give this 
woman a chance--no alternative to the Dream and Promise Act. Instead he 
offers his own bill, which has nothing whatsoever to do with DACA and 
the Dreamers. The Cruz bill would increase penalties for immigration 
offenses, but anyone who commits any of the offenses that have been 
described by the Senator from Texas is already ineligible under DACA--
ineligible. DACA requires applicants to clear criminal and national 
security background checks. Cinthya Ramirez has done that. To say that 
she is even close to committing a crime is an outrage.

[[Page S4089]]

  Let's be clear. The junior Senator from Texas is in the majority in 
the U.S. Senate. If he were serious about advancing his bill, he could 
ask the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a committee 
vote on the bill. The Senator from Texas serves on that committee. Then 
he could ask the majority leader to schedule a floor vote. But he 
hasn't done that. This bill that he brings to the floor today he has 
not even introduced as a bill in this session of Congress.
  In this session of Congress, with the Republicans in the majority, 
the immigration subcommittee chaired by the other Senator of Texas has 
held one hearing. The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted on one 
immigration bill. There has not been a single vote on an immigration 
bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  Clearly, the Senator from Texas has no intention of trying to advance 
this bill that he passionately defended on the floor. He is offering it 
today to try to muddy the waters and somehow tie up this wonderful 
young nurse in Tennessee with a horrible crime that was committed in 
California. She had nothing to do with it. There is nothing in her life 
that is even close to that crime, and to put that as the alternative to 
DACA and the Dream Act is fundamentally and totally unfair.
  As long as I am in the Senate, I will come to the floor of the Senate 
to advocate for Cinthya Ramirez and all of the Dreamers. What an 
American tragedy it would be to deport this brave and talented young 
nurse who is saving lives in the midst of this pandemic.
  America is better than that. We must ensure that Cinthya and hundreds 
of thousands of others in our essential workforce are not forced to 
stop working. We need them now more than ever, and we must give them 
the chance they desire to let them become citizens of the United 
States.
  Madam President, I object to the unanimous consent request by the 
Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, COVID-19 has taken a wrecking ball to our 
Nation's health and economy. No corner of the United States has been 
spared.
  Communities of color are being hit the hardest. We here in Congress 
must focus our work on helping these communities. We must take on the 
longstanding systemic reasons that these communities entering this 
crisis are entering at a greater risk. We must enact real reform so 
that the next time the next pandemic or economic downturn hits, it is 
not these same communities that once again bear the brunt of the 
disaster.
  Today, I want to focus our attention on American Indian and Alaska 
Native communities--communities where infection and mortality rates are 
much higher than the overall U.S. population and communities that can't 
escape the economic hardships this pandemic has caused.
  We already knew that pandemics like this take an awful toll on Native 
communities. This was true 100 years ago during the 1918 flu pandemic 
when Native Americans died at four times the rate of the rest of the 
country. This was true a decade ago during the 2019 H1N1 outbreak when 
Native Americans died at the same high rates.
  It is unforgivable that the administration was not better prepared.
  The underlying reasons that Native peoples--whether living on Tribal 
lands, in urban settings, or elsewhere--are at risk are multifaceted. 
They are all rooted in historic systemic injustice.
  First and foremost, many Native Americans do not have ready access to 
quality healthcare, despite the Federal Government's trust and treaty 
obligations to provide it--trust and treaty obligations taken on by 
this government in exchange for millions of acres of land and countless 
lives lost.
  On the large, rural reservations and in remote Alaskan Native 
villages, the nearest healthcare facility might be hours away, and when 
you get there, if you can get there, there often aren't enough doctors 
or nurses or hospital beds.
  These logistical barriers are compounded by the chronic, historic 
underfunding of the Indian Health Service, which many of us have fought 
for years to correct. While we have made progress, the IHS budget still 
only covers an estimated 16 percent of the need.
  As a result of centuries of discriminatory land, agricultural, and 
environmental policies, Native communities also face the highest rates 
of underlying conditions, like diabetes, heart and lung disease, 
asthma, and obesity, that result in worse COVID-19 outcomes.
  Battles over water rights and underinvestment in Tribal 
infrastructure have compounded the problems. We all know that washing 
our hands is a critical measure to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Yet 
Tribal communities are 3.7 times more likely to lack complete indoor 
plumbing than other U.S. households. On the Navajo Nation, which is 
confronting one of the worse coronavirus outbreaks in the Nation, 18 
percent of households don't have complete indoor plumbing. So, again, 
it is no surprise that researchers have already found that COVID-19 
cases are more likely to occur in Tribal communities, with a higher 
proportion of homes lacking indoor plumbing.
  We also know that social distancing is key to preventing the spread 
of the virus. Yet almost one in six Native households is overcrowded, 
making social distancing not just difficult but physically impossible 
for many families.
  All these institutional barriers combine to create a perfect storm. 
These barriers aren't the result of chance; they are the result of 
policy. It is these institutional barriers that we must acknowledge and 
finally address so that this pandemic is not one more example of the 
failure of the United States to meet our obligations. This time must be 
different. We must meet our responsibilities and help build a more just 
and equitable society
  Throughout this crisis, Native communities have fought back. They are 
resilient. They have fought back hard. For example, in my home State of 
New Mexico and in Arizona and Utah, the Navajo Nation has imposed 
strict curfews to prevent the spread. They have ramped up testing 
despite the complete lack of testing supplies in the beginning, and 
they have now, as of today, tested about 25 percent of their 
population, compared to 10 percent nationally.
  Tribal responses to the pandemic have been repeatedly hamstrung by 
this administration and congressional inaction. As vice chair of the 
Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I fought hard for funding targeted for 
Tribes. When the administration offered nothing for Tribes, we secured 
over $10 billion in the CARES Act. When the administration fumbled 
distribution of Tribal funding, missing the statutory deadline for 
distribution by almost 2 months, Congress and the Tribes pushed back. 
Because Tribes are in crisis, days matter. It took a lawsuit and a 
Federal court order for Tribes to get their share of the $8 billion set 
aside for them under the CARES Act.
  Today, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee will hold an oversight 
hearing on implementation of Federal programs to support Tribal COVID-
19 prevention, containment, and response efforts. Tribal witnesses will 
testify that policies and practices at FEMA, the CDC, HRSA, and a 
number of other Federal Agencies have made Tribal access to Federal 
COVID-19 resources much harder.
  Whether it is denying Tribes access to coronavirus surveillance data, 
creating a confusing, Byzantine bureaucracy for requesting emergency 
medical supplies, or delaying access to grant funds, this 
administration continually makes decisions that disadvantage Native 
communities, decisions that threaten Native lives and prolong this 
country's legacy of systemic injustice.
  The administration must do better, and Congress must do much more. 
Each day we fail to act to advance policies to address the disparities 
faced by Indian Country is a day we fail to uphold our oath of office. 
The Republican Senate majority has delayed far too

[[Page S4090]]

long. Infections are on the rise. The United States has surpassed every 
other nation in the world in the spread and death and destruction of 
this virus.
  Now, 20 million Americans are out of work, which is the highest 
unemployment level since the Great Depression. State and local and 
Tribal governments and healthcare systems across the Nation are 
shuttering essential services and furloughing essential workers. None 
of this should come as news to the Republican majority.
  Inaction in the face of this disaster is unconscionable. This body 
must get down to the business that we are here for and we are elected 
to do. It is long past time we pass another COVID-19 relief package. 
Our next package must include targeted funding and programs for Native 
communities and Tribes. We must infuse IHS with additional funding for 
Tribal healthcare and ensure it has parity in accessing Federal 
programs. We must provide Tribal governments with the resources they 
need to keep their communities up and running safely by providing $20 
billion in additional targeted funding within the Treasury's 
Coronavirus Relief Fund.
  The Senate should pass bills I have introduced that have already been 
adopted by the House of Representatives in its Heroes package, which 
was passed over 6 weeks ago. We must make our strategic stockpile 
available to Tribes. Tribes should be able to access PPE, ventilators, 
and other necessary medical equipment just as States can. We must make 
sure that Tribes have equal access to the Centers for Disease Control 
and their resources to prepare for public health emergencies like this 
pandemic.
  Seventy percent of Native Americans live in urban settings. Yet the 
Medicaid reimbursement rate for Urban Indian Health facilities is lower 
than the Federal reimbursement rate at other IHS facilities. We need to 
balance the scales and help the 43 Urban Indian Health facilities 
across the Nation expand their services.
  As so much of our lives move to the internet, we must make sure that 
Native schools, healthcare facilities, and government services are not 
left on the wrong side of the digital divide. All Tribes must have 
access to high-speed broadband.
  This public health and economic crisis has hit us all hard, but we 
shouldn't deny that some communities have been hit hard. We need to 
send immediate relief to those communities that have been so severely 
hurt, including Native communities, and we need to set our sights on 
genuinely taking on the systemic and institutional barriers these 
communities have faced for far too long. We can, we should, and we must 
do better.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague, the 
Senator from New Mexico, Tom Udall, to call for urgent action by 
Congress to respond to the needs of Tribal nations and urban indigenous 
communities during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  We have not done enough. We have not lived up to our shared trust and 
treaty obligations. And in this moment, we are called upon to respond 
to the historic injustice and systems of oppression and institutional 
violence that are harming communities of color and indigenous people.
  Over the last month, people in Minnesota and across our country have 
focused our attention on the deep systemic inequities that Black, 
Brown, and indigenous people face. This injustice is not new. It is as 
old as the colonization of our country, but, colleagues, this is a 
unique moment.
  This public health crisis presents us with an opportunity to show 
that we are serious about repairing the damage done by our broken 
promises to sovereign Tribal nations and urban indigenous communities.
  Some have said that COVID-19 is the great equalizer, but we know that 
COVID hits hardest those without a safe place to call home, those 
struggling with low wages and poverty and lack of healthcare, and 
Black, Brown, and indigenous people living with the trauma of having 
their identity and their very humanity called into question, even 
before this virus spread.
  The impact of COVID on Native communities has been devastating. 
Native people have been hospitalized for COVID at five times the rate 
of White people. In mid-May, the Navajo Nation reached a higher per-
capita infection rate than any other hotspot in the country.
  Why is it that COVID is hitting Tribal nations so hard? Despite 
repeated calls from Tribal leaders and urban indigenous leaders, over 
the past few decades, the Federal Government has stood by and allowed 
the budget of the Indian Health Service to dwindle. They have neglected 
Indian housing programs, and they have ignored growing health 
inequities.
  The Federal institutions dedicated to serving Indian Country are not 
broken. Unfortunately, these institutions have never been adequate to 
live up to our trust and treaty responsibilities, and they represent a 
broken promise.
  The Federal Government's failure has life-and-death consequences for 
Native people--for their health, for their well-being, and for their 
opportunity to provide for their families.
  Think of this striking statistic: Unemployment in the indigenous 
community in the Twin Cities is at a terrible 47 percent--higher than 
any other group in our State.
  Within Tribal nations, the economic impact of the coronavirus is 
equally devastating. Early this spring, Tribal governments in Minnesota 
and all around the country made the difficult decision to voluntarily 
close Tribal enterprises in order to protect public health. As a 
result, they lost significant government revenue and also experienced 
massive unemployment, not only for their members but for members from 
the surrounding communities. This lost revenue meant that Tribal 
governments were forced to scale back essential services, like 
nutrition assistance for elders, public safety, and education 
programming.
  In the CARES Act, Congress agreed to $8 billion in emergency relief 
to help Tribes respond to COVID. Even after congressional action, 
though, Tribal governments have had to continue fighting to get their 
fair share of those dollars. The Trump administration argued that some 
of this relief should go to for-profit Alaska Native corporations. Then 
it took the Treasury Department 40 days to distribute just the first 60 
percent of the funds to Tribes, and not until 2 weeks ago, almost 3 
months after passage of the CARES Act, did Tribal governments receive 
the rest. To be clear, these funds cannot be used to replace lost 
revenue.
  We have so much work to do to fulfill our commitment to indigenous 
people and the simple proposition that Native families should have 
equal access to healthcare and housing opportunity as White Americans.
  When I speak to Tribal leaders in my State about this cycle of 
historic underinvestment, inequity, and broken promises, I share their 
frustration. I don't know how anybody couldn't.
  Indigenous leaders in Minnesota know that a lack of housing on Tribal 
lands leads to overcrowding, which increases the risk of contracting 
COVID. Tribes have asked over and over for sufficient funding for 
housing programs. They shouldn't have to ask anymore.
  Indigenous leaders know a lack of access to healthcare and substance 
abuse disorder treatment lead to chronic health conditions, like 
diabetes, heart disease, and asthma, which worsen COVID symptoms. 
Tribes have asked over and over for sufficient funding to address these 
health inequities, and they shouldn't have to ask anymore.
  Indigenous leaders know that a lack of access to credit and capital 
prevents urban indigenous households and folks living on Tribal lands 
from building wealth like their White neighbors, who can more easily, 
therefore, weather the storm of unemployment.
  Native communities have asked over and over to enforce fair lending 
laws and to ensure access to credit for minority borrowers, and they 
shouldn't have to ask anymore. Long before COVID, these inequities have 
harmed indigenous people. Our inaction has placed Tribal nations in the 
untenable position of having to ask for what they are already owed.

[[Page S4091]]

  So let's take this extraordinary moment--a terrible moment but a 
moment of real opportunity, a moment when our country is called to 
respond to this terrible pandemic and to reckon with systemic 
inequities that have hurt Native people and even sought to erase them--
and let's turn this moment to good.
  We have an opportunity not only to address the public health and 
economic crisis of COVID but also to live up to our obligation to 
Tribes, like providing them with the tools to build resiliency in their 
communities.
  First, we need to provide rapid, flexible support to Tribal 
governments so that they can respond to COVID-19 and provide essential 
services to Tribal members at the same time.
  Second, let's live up to our promises and fully fund the Indian 
Health Service and the NAHASDA housing programs. When we do this, we 
will be addressing the shortage of physical and behavioral healthcare 
for young adults and parents and elders, and we will make it easier for 
families to find affordable safe places to live and to build wealth 
through homeownership.
  We can do this. It is within our power. We can end this cycle of 
underinvestment and institutional violence. This is the best moment in 
a generation to accomplish this.
  I am committed to lifting up the voices of indigenous leaders in 
Minnesota and around this country. I follow their lead, and I will 
continue to advocate for these changes because they are so long 
overdue.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in this work.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                             Fourth of July

  Mrs. LOEFFLER. Mr. President, 160 years ago, Abraham Lincoln reminded 
us that ``at all times . . . all American citizens are brothers of a 
common country, and should dwell together in the bonds of fraternal 
feeling.''
  That bond--our commitment to coming together to move our country 
forward, our embrace of the challenges our country faces because we 
know we will come out of these moments strong--has made the United 
States exceptional.
  As we approach the Fourth of July holiday, I want to take a moment to 
recognize what makes America who she is today and the values that have 
allowed us to carry on the Great American Experiment for 244 years.
  The United States--the shining city on a hill, the land of 
opportunity, the land of the free and the home of the brave, the red, 
white, and blue--our country is exceptional precisely because we have 
never settled for anything less.
  It was that very reason it was Americans who first discovered 
electricity, built the airplane, put a man on the Moon, developed 
chemotherapy, and that other countries look to us for leadership during 
troubled times. It is why we prevailed in two world wars, defeated the 
axis of evil, and have since maintained the greatest Armed Forces in 
the world. It is why the ideal of the American dream exists.
  Importantly, it is the American people, past and present, who have 
shaped our American character--the 56 men who put their lives on the 
line to draft and sign the Declaration of Independence in 1776; the 
volunteer army of farmers and shopkeepers who defeated the British and 
today has grown into the best fighting force the world has ever seen.
  Fifty-five Americans came together to write the U.S. Constitution, 
guaranteeing the freedoms for Americans to worship, to speak out, to 
bear arms, and to peaceably assemble. In the years that followed, 
America fulfilled its promise to form a more perfect union while 
acknowledging it is not perfect but always striving to do better.
  We ended the injustice of slavery; 100 years ago this year, gave 
women the right to vote; overcame the Great Depression; fought for the 
equal rights of all Americans during the civil rights movement; and 
persevered after September 11.
  Today we still have those heroes who make America what she is today. 
We see these works in our midst every day: our service men and women 
who bravely protect us across the globe and keep the enemy away from 
our shores; the dedicated men and women of law enforcement who work 
tirelessly to keep our communities and our families safe; our teachers, 
who provide the gift of education to our youth; our doctors and nurses, 
who save lives every day and have bravely taken on the challenge of 
COVID-19.
  American exceptionalism started with our humble beginnings, and it 
has endured throughout the challenges our country faces.
  It is tempting to focus on the divisions in America today, but we 
have much more in common that unites us. This Fourth of July is a 
reminder of the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness that all Americans deserve.
  President Reagan once said:

       Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one 
     generation away from extinction. It is not ours by 
     inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by 
     each generation, for it comes only once to a people.

  I agree, and I hope this Fourth of July we can stand together, proud 
that we will strive to make this country a more perfect union.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


                                S. 4049

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to address a glaring 
inequality in the law--one that leaves our servicemembers with fewer 
protections from discrimination than civilians. On June 15, the Supreme 
Court issued a momentous decision--welcomed by Members of both 
parties--extending civil rights employment protections to LGBTQ 
individuals in workplaces across America. That decision, however, does 
not apply to servicemembers. That means our servicemembers, who often 
come from communities that have for generations bravely sacrificed for 
the United States, currently enjoy fewer statutory protections than 
their civilian counterparts.
  Think about what that says about our country: The law treats the 
people willing to risk their lives to defend our freedoms as second 
class citizens. It is unconscionable, and it is un-American. In this 
moment of reckoning on civil rights, we must ensure those rights extend 
to all of our military servicemembers.
  The push for the desegregation of our troops, for gender integration 
into combat, and for the repeal of don't ask, don't tell were all met 
with similar arguments about how increased opportunity for the group in 
question would hamper readiness, unit cohesion, or otherwise weaken the 
military. Those arguments have been proven wrong every single time.
  It is, in fact, the lack of protections for these groups that hamper 
readiness. Without protections, an able platoon sergeant can be 
stigmatized and driven from the military because he is transgender. His 
years of experience and the immense investments the military has made 
in him can be erased with the stroke of a pen.
  Our military has grown only stronger as it better represents our 
country. But, right now, in the year 2020, people who are willing to 
make extraordinary sacrifices for our freedoms are being told no simply 
because of who they are.
  We must do better. And we can. We can make sure the National Defense 
Authorization Act includes discrimination protections for all 
servicemembers.
  My amendment with Senator Collins would codify in the law that 
servicemembers of all races, religions, and sexes are protected from 
discrimination. It would affirm that Americans of every race, religion, 
sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and national origin have the 
right to join and serve and sacrifice in our military.
  I was proud to have Senator John McCain join me in leading similar 
legislation to protect transgender troops 3 years ago. The late Senator 
said: ``Any member of the military who meets the medical and readiness 
standards should be allowed to serve--including those who are 
transgender.'' I hope this will be the year that we deliver the results 
he wanted for our troops.
  Placing language safeguarding this right into the NDAA can help us 
begin to overcome an unfortunate legacy of creating artificial, 
blatantly unfair barriers to service by underrepresented groups. It is 
a legacy that continues to

[[Page S4092]]

this day with the Trump administration's ban on transgender 
servicemembers.
  That discriminatory ban is not only an insult to members of the 
transgender community who have served our country; it is an insult to 
every LGBTQ person who has given their life to protect it. Arguments 
against open transgender service have no basis in experience or in 
science.
  Transgender individuals served openly in the military for more than 
2\1/2\ years without any readiness or cohesion issues. I know because I 
asked all four service chiefs and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, and they all confirmed it. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, Mark Milley, who was then Chief of Staff of the Army, told me 
that he had received ``precisely zero reports of issues of cohesion, 
discipline, [or] morale'' caused by transgender individuals in the 
service.
  The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric 
Association, and other experts agree: There is no medically valid 
reason to exclude transgender individuals from military service. Anyone 
who can meet the military standards should be allowed to serve--and 
serve in an environment free from discrimination. It is that simple.
  Our Armed Services should reflect the best of what this country has 
to offer--in their values and in their ranks. We cannot allow for laws 
that unnecessarily limit their ability to recruit and retain the best 
person for the job.
  I ask my colleagues to support our troops with more than lip service. 
I ask my colleagues to extend to them protections from discrimination 
based on race, religion, or sex. These are people who are willing to 
fight for our country. These are people who are willing to die for our 
country. This body and our country must be willing to fight for them. 
My amendment will do exactly that. I ask all of you to support its 
inclusion in this year's NDAA
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise again to address another 
issue. I rise because, according to the Pentagon's recent biannual 
survey, almost 21,000 servicemembers were sexually assaulted in the 
year 2018. That was a 38-percent increase from the year before.
  I rise because the current climate of retaliation in our armed 
services and the lack of justice provided by the chain of command meant 
nearly three-quarters of those assaults went unreported, and less than 
10 percent of cases considered for command action went to trial--less 
than 10 percent.
  I rise because I stood in this very Chamber in 2013 and shared 
essentially the same statistics.
  Year after year, the leaders of our armed services come to Congress 
and commit to making things better. They commit to us in hearing after 
hearing: We will get this right. Yet, year after year, thousands of 
servicemembers are raped and sexually assaulted, and their assailants 
are not held accountable.
  In many of those cases, the assailant is someone in the survivor's 
chain of command--the same chain of command that will decide the case, 
picking judge, jury, prosecutor, defense counsel--all decided by a 
commander in that chain of command.
  There is no other judicial system in America that would ever allow 
this to happen. This system is not delivering justice. The chain of 
command is not delivering justice. These decisions--these fundamental 
civil rights decisions--need to be made somewhere else. They need to be 
made by trained, impartial military professionals, prosecutors, 
lawyers--people who are trained to make this very hard decision.
  We are asking survivors to come forward in an environment where they 
know that there is less than a 10-percent chance that the chain of 
command will try their assailant for a crime and--worse--that there is 
only a two in three chance that they themselves--they themselves--will 
face retaliation.
  Despite repeated efforts to stamp out the scourge of retaliation 
against military sexual assault survivors, the most recent Pentagon 
survey found that 64 percent of these survivors have experienced some 
form of retaliation for reporting the crime. This figure is 
statistically unchanged from 2016. It is unacceptable.
  I ask you: Who is this system designed for?
  I think so often about a Marine veteran who told me:

       When I reported the assault, my command responded with 
     retaliation . . . ostracism, intimidation, and isolation. The 
     humiliation of the retaliation was worse than the assault 
     because it was sanctioned from those same leaders I once 
     would have risked my life for.

  The climate of retaliation comes from the top. It comes from the 
chain of command. They should not be deciding these cases. They do not 
have the background or the impartiality necessary to deliver justice. 
This system is broken, and it is failing our servicemembers.
  This Congress has passed and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on 
incremental reforms since 2013. During this time, an estimated 137,000 
servicemembers have been assaulted.
  Let me say that again. During that time, 137,000 servicemembers have 
been sexually assaulted.
  What are we doing here? Can we not hold the U.S. military 
accountable? Can we not do our jobs? Can we not stand up for the men 
and women who risk their lives for us every day?
  Incremental change that leaves the power in the hands of the chain of 
command is not enough. We have the proof and the evidence.
  ``We've got this ma'am; we've got this.'' They say it every year. 
They don't have it, and they haven't had it for the last 7 years we 
have been focused on this very issue. It does not do enough to protect 
our servicemembers from sexual assault in the ranks or to punish 
perpetrators who commit these violent crimes.
  Just for a minute, imagine this is your daughter or your son. Imagine 
just for a minute that your children decide to go into the military. Do 
you think they will be protected?
  My bill, the Military Justice Improvement Act, is being offered as an 
amendment to the NDAA. This amendment will professionalize how the 
military prosecutes serious crimes like sexual assault, and it will 
remove the systemic fear that survivors have to report these crimes. 
Survivors don't report these crimes because they fear the retaliation 
against them.
  This bipartisan and commonsense reform leaves the majority of 
uniquely military crimes, as well as all crimes punishable by less than 
1 year of confinement, within the chain of command. It would only move 
one decision--literally, one decision--that only 3 percent of 
commanders actually have the right to make, and that decision will be 
made by a trained military prosecutor.
  These prosecutors, or military JAGS, are required to be licensed 
attorneys in good standing with their State bar associations and are 
subject to professional rules of ethics. Those are commonsense 
standards, but they are not the standards that commanders have to meet. 
Commanders aren't typically lawyers. They are not typically criminal 
lawyers. They are not trained in how to make this fundamental decision 
about whether a crime has been committed. So why wouldn't you let 
military police investigate the crime just as they do today?
  They take that investigation and, instead of putting it on the 
commander's general counsel's desk, they will put it on a military 
prosecutor's desk. The military prosecutor gets to make a decision: yes 
or no; I can prosecute or I can't. Then, that file goes right back to 
the commander. So when the commander wants to do nonjudicial 
punishment, he gets to do it. Every time a prosecutor says there is no 
case here, he gets to have the same authority he has today.
  Under today's standards, only 10 percent of these cases go to trial. 
That would mean the commanders don't get to make that one decision that 
3 percent of them get to make 10 percent of the time because 90 percent 
of the time it comes right back to the commander to do whatever 
nonjudicial punishment he or she thinks is appropriate.
  This is a very small but important change because when you make this 
change, the survivor sees that the decision isn't being made within her 
chain of command. She or he sees that the decision is being made by 
somebody trained to make the decision--someone who is actually a 
prosecutor. He or she will then believe it is worth reporting the 
crime.

[[Page S4093]]

  So many of these crimes don't even get reported and, sadly, the 
percentage of those that are being reported is going up--the percentage 
of those reported confidentially. It doesn't show that there is any 
faith in the system if people will only report if they don't name their 
perpetrator.
  This reform is nothing new. This reform has been done all across the 
world by our allies. Our allies in the United Kingdom, Canada, Israel, 
Germany, and Australia have all removed reporting and prosecution of 
violent sex crimes out of the chain of command. Leaders in those 
militaries have reported that these changes have not diminished their 
ability in any way. It has not diminished their commanders' ability to 
maintain good order and discipline, to train their troops, and to do 
what they are there for.
  Congress owes our servicemembers a debt of gratitude that can never 
be fully repaid. These brave men and women who have experienced the 
unimaginable are counting on us this year to finally take real action. 
Until we do, we continue to fail in our responsibility to protect them.
  Madam President, this is something we have worked on together for 
over 7 years. This is something that, on a bipartisan basis, this 
Chamber has worked on for 7 years. We have been denied a vote on this 
over the last 5 years--denied a vote on this the last 5 years. The 
military has fought tooth and nail to not put in these fundamental 
reforms. They ask us over and over: Trust us; we got this. Trust us; we 
got this.
  They don't have it. They haven't had it, and they don't focus on it.
  If you just look at the report from this year alone, we are up to 
20,000--over 20,000--sexual assaults in the last year. The percentage 
of cases that are being reported confidentially is going up. The 
percentage of cases that are being reported openly is going down. The 
percentage of cases that are going to trial is going down. The 
percentage of cases ending in conviction is going down. So under no 
measure today has the military succeeded in this mission, under 
absolutely none. They say they got this. They don't have it. They never 
have. And if we don't do our job this year, they never will.
  This is not something new. This is something that other countries 
that are our allies have done. It professionalizes the military. It 
gives hope to survivors. It creates permission for them to report these 
crimes. If more crimes are reported, more prosecutions will be 
completed, and more cases will end in conviction.
  Send a message: Convict perpetrators. Protect survivors. Honor the 
sacrifice and legacy of every man and woman who serves in the military 
today who will give their life for this country. That is our 
responsibility.
  I urge everyone in this Chamber to stand with our troops. Stand with 
the men and women who sacrifice everything, and do the right thing. It 
is our job. We are supposed to provide oversight and accountability 
over the U.S. military. It is the Senate's job, and every year that we 
don't address this fundamental scourge is another year we fail.
  I am tired of this Chamber failing our servicemembers. I am tired of 
our commanders and our military failing our servicemembers. We owe 
everything to them
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. McSally). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Paycheck Protection Program

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, last night, the Senate approved 
legislation to extended the Paycheck Protection Program, better known 
as PPP, through August 8, while we continue bipartisan negotiations on 
a bill to provide additional assistance to our small businesses that 
have been especially hard hit by COVID-19 mitigation measures.
  I very much hope that the House of Representatives will act quickly 
to extend this important lifeline for our small employers, as new PPP 
loans cannot be issued until the bill that passed the Senate last night 
is enacted and signed into law, even though approximately $130 billion 
remains available for the program.
  Let me, again, commend my partners in this endeavor, Senators Marco 
Rubio, Ben Cardin, and Jeanne Shaheen, for their continued work on this 
vital program.
  Back in March, the four of us formed a small business task force. We 
looked at ways that we could help our small employers and their 
employees survive this pandemic. We put forth a bold plan, the Paycheck 
Protection Program, to help small employers and their employees. Our 
concept was straightforward: provide forgivable loans to small 
employers to help them maintain that vital connection with their 
employees, so that both could rebound and thrive once the pandemic 
passes.
  In some cases, that meant that a small business could retain an 
employee who, otherwise, would have been laid off. In others, it has 
meant that the small business could recall workers who had already been 
laid off. And in yet other cases, it allowed employers to continue to 
send paychecks to employees who had been furloughed so that we could 
keep that link between employers and their employees, so that when the 
reopening occurred, they could be reunited quickly and the business 
could get up and running much more rapidly.
  The response to this program has been phenomenal. Since its launch in 
early April, it has provided $518 billion in forgivable loans to 4.8 
million small employers across the Nation.
  According to an ongoing U.S. Census Survey, nearly three out of every 
four small business respondents reported that they had received 
assistance under the PPP program. In Maine, nearly 27,000 small 
businesses have received forgivable loans, totaling more than $2.2 
billion. Just to give you an idea of how much of a stimulus that is, 
that is equal to almost half of the entire State budget. That works out 
to an average loan size of $83,400, which translates into a small 
business with approximately seven employees. All told, this program is 
helping to sustain nearly 200,000 jobs in the State of Maine.

  As Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin testified last month:

       The [Paycheck Protection Program] is supporting the 
     employment of approximately 50 million workers and more than 
     75 percent of small business payroll in all 50 states. This 
     is an extraordinary achievement.

  It is, indeed. It has made such a difference to our small employers. 
It has kept our small businesses afloat, prevented them from giving up 
and shuttering their doors forever, and provided paychecks to their 
employees.
  When we first drafted this program in early March, we did not know 
how long government-ordered closures would last. In fact, most of them 
had not even gone into effect at the time that we drafted the law. We 
also did not know how severe the impacts of these government-ordered 
closures would be. We did not know how long the pandemic would last. 
How I wish that we could announce today that COVID-19 had been 
conquered; that America's small businesses were flourishing once again; 
and that the millions of jobs that they provide had been fully 
restored. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and we have a long road 
ahead of us.
  According to a survey released last week by NFIB, an organization 
that is dedicated to providing a voice for America's small businesses, 
half of its members anticipate needing additional financial support in 
the next 12 months.
  I fear that, if Congress fails to act, despite our good work to date, 
millions of our small businesses will be put at risk, and millions of 
jobs will be lost.
  A case study of how the pandemic has threatened the viability of 
small businesses can be found in Maine's tourism sector. Tourism is one 
of our State's largest economic sectors. It supports 110,000 jobs. That 
is one out of every six jobs in our State. In 2018, total tourism 
expenditures exceeded $6.2 billion. That is $7 million per day.
  In late March, there was the expectation that the 2020 tourism season 
would certainly be lower than the norm but active enough for the 
tourism businesses to survive. But, as the Fourth of July draws closer, 
near empty hotels, inns, B&Bs, and restaurants portend a long-lasting 
disaster, as many of our

[[Page S4094]]

State's seasonal businesses rely on the busy summer season and fall 
season to pay their major bills for the year, including their mortgage 
and property taxes, not to mention their all-important employees.
  Two weeks ago, a Maine innkeeper in York County told me that her inn 
would normally have a 94-percent occupancy rate at this point in the 
summer. She currently has an occupancy rate of 6 percent.
  As one observer put it, the word ``Vacationland,'' which appears on 
our license plates in Maine, might well be replaced with ``Vacancy 
Land.''
  I have heard from so many hotel owners throughout Maine, and their 
stories all have a familiar theme: Reservations made months ago for 
July and August are being canceled, and cancelations for the fall are 
also starting to come in. In addition to putting hotel staff at risk of 
losing their jobs, or having their hours cut drastically, or not being 
hired in the first place, the vendors that supply these establishments 
are losing sales. Local retailers and restaurants are losing summer 
customers. Planned improvements and expansions are being postponed, 
causing harm for local tradespeople.
  I talked to a restaurant owner who operates a wonderful restaurant in 
Portland. Right now, she has to depend on outside seating and lives in 
fear of a bad storm, where people won't be able to eat outside. Only 
slowly is Maine allowing in-restaurant eating to resume in the most 
populous parts of our State. All of us understand that we have to put 
the health of people first, but these restaurant owners are getting 
desperate, and they are trying very hard to comply with all the CDC 
regulations.
  There is no doubt that similar disruptions are occurring across the 
country. That is why it is so important that we reach bipartisan 
agreement to allow those small businesses that have been especially 
hard hit by the pandemic to receive an additional forgivable loan. As 
we continue our bipartisan negotiations on such a plan, I have come to 
the floor to outline some of my own priorities for a second Paycheck 
Protection Program loan.
  First, I do believe that we will achieve bipartisan agreement to 
allow the hardest hit small business employers--those who have seen 
their revenues decline by 50 percent or more in any quarter this year 
compared to the same quarter last year--to receive an additional PPP 
loan. This is absolutely essential to the ability of these businesses 
to survive as the fight against COVID-19 continues
  Second, because we must stretch the $130 billion that remains in the 
PPP funds as far as we possibly can, I support generally limiting 
eligibility to entities that have 300, rather than 500 or fewer, 
employees with a special provision for seasonal employers.
  Third, I believe that we need to expand forgivable PPP expenses in 
some commonsense ways. For example, we should allow forgiveness for 
supplier costs and investments in facility modifications and personal 
protective equipment that employers are buying to protect their 
employees and their customers, such as plexiglass shields, patio 
installations for outdoor dining, masks, gloves--that kind of 
equipment. It is especially important to restaurants facing dining 
restrictions and those struggling to get the high-quality food supply 
that they need. We should also clarify that employer-provided group 
health benefits are included in forgivable payroll costs.
  Fourth, we should extend the PPP to small 501(c)(6) organizations 
that are not lobby organizations. I am talking about local chambers of 
commerce, business leagues, economic development associations, and 
boards of trade, which are doing a great job but are struggling to 
themselves survive.
  Fifth, we should clarify in statute that forgivable loan funds can be 
spent through December 31 and allow borrowers to apply for loan 
forgiveness, at the time of their choosing, after 8 weeks from loan 
origination.
  Finally, to ensure transparency in the PPP loan program, we should 
require the Small Business Administration to comply with data and 
information requests from the Government Accountability Office or 
Federal inspectors general within 15 days.
  There are many other ideas that the four of us who are members of the 
Small Business Task Force are taking a look at, but today, I just 
wanted to outline for my colleagues some ideas that I am particularly 
interested in including in this bill.
  As the shutdowns have grown longer, it has become clear that millions 
of small employers need additional help if they are to keep their heads 
above water and survive. It also has been clear that many of these 
employers must make substantial investments to modify their operations, 
to protect their employees and customers, to mitigate the spread of the 
COVID virus.
  Most of all, we need to always keep in mind that we are talking about 
employees. It is the small businesses of our country that employ the 
majority of the people who are working.
  We are close to reaching a bipartisan agreement, and I know we are 
going to be working very hard over the recess to do so. I also know 
that, for small businesses that are struggling, such an agreement 
cannot come soon enough.
  Again, I want to thank my colleagues--Senator Marco Rubio, Senator 
Ben Cardin, Senator Jeanne Shaheen--for their dedication and good-faith 
efforts to reach an agreement.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I came before the Chamber yesterday and 
made the case as to why Congress needs to begin negotiations on another 
COVID-19 emergency supplemental bill and to do it now. The needs are 
real. They are immediate. In fact, when the House passed the Heroes 
Act, we should have begun those negotiations in the first week after it 
had passed it, but we didn't. We should have begun the negotiations in 
the second week after it had passed it, but we didn't. We should have 
begun the negotiations in the third week after it had passed it, but we 
didn't--and the fourth and the fifth and the sixth.
  Every day, I talk with Vermonters, sometimes hundreds at a time in 
statewide conference calls. From small businesses, to families, to 
schools, to hospitals, to Federal employees, I hear their urgent needs. 
So I want to talk today about just one of those urgent needs--funding 
for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS.
  It plays an important role in our Nation's immigration system. It 
processes requests for immigration benefits, American citizenship, and 
it screens asylum seekers. The agency is staffed by more than 19,000 
dedicated men and women across the country, including roughly 1,700 in 
my home State of Vermont.
  Last Friday, furlough notices were sent out to 13,350 of the 19,000 
USCIS employees. They are effective next month, on August 3. That is 
just 4 weeks from now. In Vermont, 1,111 men and women received this 
notice, which is over 65 percent of the USCIS workforce in Vermont. 
These are men and women who, day after day, do important work for the 
Nation. They have continued to do that work every day even during the 
COVID-19 pandemic.
  And they have been told, even though they have been doing the work 
loyally and effectively, after August 3, a month from now, they can no 
longer do their job; they will no longer receive a paycheck.
  Nationwide these are 13,350 new and urgent reasons why the Senate 
must act on our Nation's real and immediate needs, and the Senate 
majority must make that possible now. We have lost 6 weeks since the 
House acted on this. It is time the Senate acts.
  I have been ringing the alarm bells for more than a month on this 
issue. We know that due to declining revenue, immigration-related 
application fees coming into USCIS, the agency is facing a budget 
shortfall of $1.2 billion, and the furlough notices that were suddenly 
sent out last week are the result of this shortfall. USCIS is simply 
saying they can't pay employees with revenues they do not have.
  I would remind everybody the shortfall is not entirely due to COVID-
19. The agency has not lived within its budget for the last 3 years of 
this administration, and, frankly, the Trump administration's 
mismanagement and extreme immigration policies have only worsened the 
situation.
  As part of the President's efforts to erase our identity as a nation 
of immigrants, he has not just tried to shut

[[Page S4095]]

our Nation's doors to asylum seekers and refugees, he has attempted to 
restrict almost all immigration to this country.
  He has created obstacles for immigrant workers, created a wealth test 
for immigrants, even exploited the current public health emergency to 
impose additional immigration restrictions that have nothing to do with 
public health.
  And because USCIS has not been able to issue visas or process other 
immigration benefits as they normally do as a result of President 
Trump's anti-immigrant policies, revenue, of course, has fallen.
  No matter the cause, the budget shortfall is real. We have to address 
it. Furloughs would not only disrupt the processing of immigration 
benefits and American citizenship and other critical services provided 
by USCIS, but it is going to cause unnecessary hardships on thousands 
of Federal employees and Federal contractors. It is going to come at a 
time when our Nation is already dealing with record job losses.
  The loss of these valuable jobs will also cause hardship to the 
communities across the Nation where these Federal workers live and 
work. These are communities already struggling with the pandemic. They 
were dealing with people who have skills that have been built up over 
years of experience.
  So let's craft a fair, responsible solution to this problem. That 
would require emergency appropriations and accompanying legislation to 
ensure transparency and accountability.
  Time is of the essence. I know, as vice chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, we have agreement on the vast majority of the 
possible appropriations bills. There has been a concern by the 
Republican majority not to bring them up because they do not want 
something on COVID.
  Well, every Senator can go home and talk to their people in their 
State. They will hear, as I do every single day in my calls from 
Vermonters, there is a need to do something regarding COVID.
  Now, there have been numerous calls by myself and the Democratic 
leadership in the Senate, and despite those calls, the White House and 
the Republican majority have refused to move forward on a fourth COVID-
19 emergency appropriations bill where we could address this and other 
critical issues caused by the coronavirus pandemic.
  We should not wait any longer. In fact, we must not wait any longer. 
I call on Majority Leader McConnell to begin bipartisan negotiations on 
a COVID-19 emergency relief bill now so we can solve this problem 
before furloughs are necessary.
  The Senate is about to recess for 2 weeks, but that doesn't mean our 
work stops. With millions of people working from home due to the 
coronavirus, including in the U.S. Senate, we have shown that we can do 
our job from wherever we are located.
  I know, on the major COVID bill, my staff and I worked 7 days a week, 
sometimes very late into the night, and we are all in separate 
locations, but we got it done, and we got an appropriations bill 
through here that almost all Republicans and Democrats voted for 
because people worked together. We worked together. We passed 
legislation this country needed.
  We showed it can be done, so we can and we should begin bipartisan, 
bicameral negotiations. Do it during the next 2 weeks so that when the 
Senate is back in session, we have legislation to consider and debate. 
We can enact the bill into law expeditiously.
  If there are amendments people want or things they want to change, 
vote them up or vote them down. We should be willing to stand here and 
vote, and then we can enact a bill into law and do it expeditiously.
  The American people deserve no less. The dedicated men and women at 
USCIS deserve no less, but I would say the men and women of every 
single one of our States deserve no less.
  There are 100 of us here. We have shown we can work together. We have 
done it before. We have done it with appropriations bills. We sat here, 
voted for or against amendments, and then did what is best for the 
country. Let's do it. Let's not be afraid to vote.
  I see my distinguished friend from Texas on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Vermont for his 
courtesy.
  Yesterday, Texas reported almost 7,000 new coronavirus cases, setting 
a new single-day record.
  As cases have climbed in recent weeks, it has become clear that we 
need to take what we have learned about this virus and adjust our 
strategy.
  In the beginning, we were still learning about this novel virus and 
how it is transmitted, while also trying to maximize scarce resources. 
I think the best analogy I can think of--we were trying to design and 
build an airplane while we were flying it.
  Because of that, only individuals with symptoms or who had been in 
contact with a person who had tested positive could be tested 
themselves, but we know a lot has changed in the last few months. We 
have learned that individuals can have the virus even if they aren't 
showing symptoms.
  Recent studies in North Carolina and New York have shown that 
somewhere between 12 and 20 percent of people could have the COVID-19 
antibodies. In other words, they have had the virus, and they 
recovered, but they didn't even know they were sick in the first place, 
but the problem is they can still spread it to others.
  As our knowledge about the coronavirus has increased, so have our 
testing capacities, but I think it is important to take stock of where 
we are and to see how we need to adjust further to, again, what we have 
learned by hard experience.
  On Sunday, I traveled to Dallas, TX, with Vice President Mike Pence 
for a briefing on the coronavirus response efforts, and we were joined 
by two of those members--Dr. Deborah Birx and HUD Secretary Dr. Ben 
Carson.
  On the flight down, I was able to spend some time talking with Dr. 
Birx about testing strategies and the ways we can more effectively 
identify positive cases and stop the spread, especially among 
asymptomatic individuals who have no incentive, no motivation to 
request a test in the first place. If I am feeling well, why would I go 
ask for a coronavirus test unless I am just curious. That is the 
conundrum.
  Dr. Birx talked about the concept of pool testing, which is one of 
the most efficient ways to test large numbers of people using the least 
amount of time and resources.
  Let's say, for example, that a number of employees at a meat packing 
plant are tested simultaneously. Rather than running each sample 
individually to see if any of the employees had the virus, you would 
pool the sample together and run it as a group. If the pool sample 
comes back negative, you know that each individual within that pool is 
negative. And if it comes back positive, each sample is run 
individually to identify positive cases.
  But this is a way to magnify the number of testing cases we can do by 
maybe as much as a factor of 10.
  This pool-testing model makes it much easier to conduct repeated 
tests for individuals in a single setting such as workplaces, schools, 
or nursing homes.
  This is exactly the kind of strategy we are going to need as we 
contemplate sending our children back to school.
  Dr. Birx was recently quoted as saying: ``If you look around the 
globe, the way people are doing a million tests or 10 million tests is 
they're doing pooling.''
  So as we are seeing spikes in Texas and a number of other States 
across the country, it is clear we need to adapt to everything we have 
learned and embrace a new and different strategy. We need more 
efficient and effective ways to test broad swaths of people so we can 
identify positive cases as soon as possible.
  Now, we know this virus is particularly deadly if you are over 80 
years old or if you have underlying health problems. For the rest of 
us, honestly, if you get symptoms, you are probably going to recover. 
Sadly, some will have to be hospitalized, but, actually, the level of 
fatalities we have seen from the coronavirus infection have remained 
remarkably low because our healthcare providers have discovered new 
treatments and new ways to save lives.
  A data scientist and associate professor at Cornell University named

[[Page S4096]]

Peter Frazier has said about pool testing that ``if you don't test 
people without symptoms and focus only on symptomatic people, then you 
miss the epidemic and continue spreading.''
  We need to constantly reevaluate and adapt our strategy to ensure 
that we are identifying cases as soon as possible to stop the spread 
and to protect the most vulnerable among us.
  I know the administration and the task force are working around the 
clock on this, but to be frank, we need to up our game, and I hope we 
will focus on developing a comprehensive testing strategy based on what 
we have learned from this hard experience to combat the rise in cases 
and community spread we are seeing in places like Texas and elsewhere.


                                S. 4049

  Madam President, this week, the Senate is fulfilling one of our most 
basic responsibilities--and that is to support our common defense.
  Passing the strong, strategic, and bipartisan national defense 
authorization bill is something we have done for the last 60 years. It 
is how this body has ensured that generations of servicemembers would 
be paid, that they would have the equipment and training they need, as 
well as the weapons, the planes, and the ships to bring them home 
safely. It is how we have taken stock of the evolving threat landscape 
and made adjustments to ensure that our military remains the very best 
in the world. It is a belief in peace through strength.
  We know our adversaries are constantly watching us to see whether we 
are hesitant or pulling back from our world leadership or maybe we are 
not investing like they are in modern weapons systems that can defeat 
our defenses.
  Well, we know for all the technologies and innovation that have made 
our lives simpler and more efficient, that these changes in technology 
have made safeguarding our national security that much more 
challenging.
  We are seeing new technologies on the battlefield, and the race to 
develop next-generation weapons, such as hypersonic missiles, has 
allowed our competitors to get a few steps ahead of us. The bottom line 
is, unless we continue our investment and our determination to remain 
No. 1, we are going to be losing ground against our adversaries. We no 
longer enjoy the across-the-board strategic edge that we used to have, 
and it is time for us to take bold action to reverse the tide before it 
is too late. That is what I believe we can achieve with this year's 
National Defense Authorization bill.
  I appreciate Chairman Inhofe and the members of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, which operates almost entirely on a bipartisan 
basis. It really is a great tradition and one we don't want to break, 
passing the Defense authorization bill each year
  It also provides funding to both modernize and grow our aging fleet, 
so we can send our troops around the world with the confidence that 
they have the best equipment available.
  I'm glad this legislation includes a provision I offered to increase 
the number of new F-35 aircraft. When we talk about providing our 
servicemembers with the best possible equipment, the F-35 is a prime 
example. This 5th generation fighter gives our servicemembers an edge 
in stealth, surveillance, and weapons systems.
  Growing our F-35 fleet has been a priority for a number of years, and 
this legislation will continue moving us in the right direction. These 
aircraft will be made by hardworking Texans in Fort Worth, and provide 
our servicemembers around the world with the most advanced and capable 
aircraft to see them through their missions.
  But maintaining a competitive edge requires much more than a fleet of 
top of the line aircraft or a stockpile of innovative weapons. It also 
requires end to end security in our supply chains.
  The COVID-19 pandemic has really shone a light on the vulnerabilities 
that come from a reliance on other countries for critical 
manufacturing. We lean heavily on China and other countries for masks, 
gloves, gowns, ventilators--all the equipment we've needed over the 
past few months. That reliance has led to a shortage of these supplies 
at the most critical time, and forced our medical workers to go into 
battle without their traditional armor.
  It's been a wake-up call on supply chain vulnerabilities, and a 
reminder that we need to keep our most critical supply chains right 
here at home. One area where we need improvement is with 5G. For all 
the rewards that come with this advanced technology, there are also a 
lot of risks, and we need to ensure we're protecting this critical 
asset. That's why Senators Burr, Warner, and I introduced the Secure 5G 
and Beyond Act, which is now law.
  It requires the President to develop a strategy to ensure the 
security of next generation telecom systems, and help our allies 
protect their systems as well. But I believe we need to take this a 
step further, and safeguard not only the networks themselves but the 
supply chains that produce them. The reality is, a lack of domestic 
industry has caused the U.S. to fall behind our foreign adversaries in 
developing 5G technologies.
  I'm glad the NDAA includes an amendment I offered to support these 
critical supply chains. It would give the Department of Defense the 
flexibility to partner with industry for commercial development and 
deployment of 5G technologies. This will ensure we're investing in 
American companies to strengthen and secure our critical networks, 
which are vital not only to our national security, but to our everyday 
lives.
  Beyond supporting 5G, another critical supply chain we need to 
support is for semiconductors.
  These devices are everywhere--they're the underlying technology in 
everything from our cell phones, to computers, to cell towers, to 
missile defense systems. Despite the pervasiveness of these devices in 
our everyday lives, we're largely relying on other countries to 
manufacture them. Since 2000, the U.S. has dropped from producing 
roughly a quarter of the world's semiconductors to only 12 percent.
  Meanwhile, China has gone from manufacturing zero chips to 16 percent 
of the world's supply, and plans to invest another $1.4 trillion in 
semiconductor technologies. America has lost ground to global 
competitors, and unless the U.S. takes action, it's estimated that by 
2030, 83 percent of global semiconductor manufacturing capacity will be 
in Asia. We need to bring back some of the talent that was first 
created here in the U.S.
  0f course, that's much easier said than done. Building a new foundry 
is a very expensive undertaking, and it's going to require an 
investment from the federal government.
  That's why Senator Warner and I introduced the CHIPS for America Act, 
and I hope we can include a version of this bill as an amendment to the 
NDAA. This would create a federal incentive program through the 
Department of Commerce to encourage semiconductor manufacturing in the 
U.S.
  In short, this would help stimulate domestic advanced semiconductor 
manufacturing, and boost both our national security and global 
competitiveness.
  I mentioned, these devices are everywhere--military systems, 
telecommunications, healthcare, agriculture, manufacturing. Virtually 
every industry stands to benefit from a more secure semiconductor 
supply chain and our economy would reap the benefits of bringing these 
manufacturing jobs back to the United States.
  This legislation would serve as a boon to both our national security 
and our economy, and I'm hoping it will be included as part of the 
NDAA.
  I'd like to once again thank Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed 
for upholding the now 60-year tradition of a bipartisan process to get 
this legislation over the finish line on time. I'm glad this 
legislation prioritizes advancements in the critical technologies that 
will modernize our national defense, and restore our competitive edge.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, I would make a comment in 
reaction to the comments of our good friend from Texas. What he says is 
true, and the American people are not aware--and I don't say this 
critically of the previous administration--but during the Obama 
administration, his top priority was not really defense. He had his own 
agenda, and, consequently, we suffered at that time.
  In the last 5 years, which would have been from 2010 to 2015, he 
reduced the

[[Page S4097]]

funding of our military by 25 percent. What people don't realize is, 
during that same timeframe, Russia increased theirs by 34 percent, and 
China increased the funding of their military by 83 percent. That put 
us in a situation in which we have to do what we are doing, and that is 
why this and the last bills have been very important.
  We are still working on the National Defense Authorization Act. I 
consider it to be the most important bill of the year. I know my 
colleagues agree with me that this is very significant, and this is 
something that we know is eventually going to pass. This will be the 
60th consecutive year.
  Our military is the best in the world. This week, with this bill, we 
are going to make sure it stays that way. The goal of having a strong 
military is deterrence--to make sure that we don't have to use it--and 
to send a signal to our enemies that they can't win against us. This is 
the message we need to send today, tomorrow, and forever. That is what 
the national defense strategy tells us.
  I don't have the national defense strategy book here, but we have 
been adhering to it. It is a strategy that was put together a few years 
ago by 12 Democrats, 12 Republicans, and all the experts in the field, 
and we have been using it as our model ever since. So we want to make 
sure that we have enough ships and planes and everything in place.
  China and Russia have caught up in some areas, and I think it is 
important, as the Senator from Texas said about the hypersonic weapons, 
that we are talking about offensive and defensive weapons; we are 
talking about something that is state of the art. They actually are 
ahead of us right now, but with this bill we are going to get caught 
up.
  Our superiority rests on our staying ahead of our competition. We 
ceded that advantage under the last administration, and we are going to 
correct that. That is where we are right now.
  I see the minority leader is here, and I would like to propose a 
unanimous consent request.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Amendments En Bloc

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be 
determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic 
leader, the following amendments be made pending en bloc and the Senate 
vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed without 
intervening action or debate: Paul amendment No. 2011; Sanders 
amendment No. 1790; third, Cornyn-Schumer-Cotton amendment No. 2244.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be 
called up en bloc and the Senate vote on adoption of the amendments en 
bloc with no intervening action or debate.
  I hesitate to do this. It will take me a minute to actually name all 
of the amendments because it is important for our Members who are 
watching to be aware of where they stand in line.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en 
bloc and the Senate vote on adoption of the amendments en bloc with no 
intervening action or debate: Moran, No. 1694; Hyde-Smith, No. 1881; 
Romney, No. 1883; Portman, No. 1891; Kennedy, No. 1987; Romney, No. 
2018; Sullivan, No. 2391; Johnson, No. 2077; Wicker, No. 2178, Fischer, 
No. 2231; Risch, No. 2238; Gardner, No. 2241; Portman, No. 2243; 
Inhofe-Reed, No. 2248; Peters, No. 1753; Warner, No. 1803; Coons, No. 
1808; Warner, No. 1907; Tester, No. 1968; Bennet, No. 1977; Smith, No. 
2058; Cortez Masto, No. 2186; King, No. 2215; Merkley, No. 2251; 
Cantwell, No. 2255; Cantwell, No. 2256; Hirono, No. 2269; Menendez, No. 
2270, and Peters, No. 2275.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Democratic leader
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object, while I know the 
committee is working hard and I know the Senator from Oklahoma and the 
Senator from Rhode Island are working hard together in a very good way, 
I know they have been trying to work up an agreement on three 
amendments to come, as well as a managers' package, but there are 
certain amendments that our side feels should be debated.
  In a moment I will ask the chairman to modify his request to include 
reasonable numbers of amendments that we believe should have rollcall 
votes. None of these are ``gotcha'' amendments. None of these are 
extraneous. They are not dealing with impeachment or the records of the 
President or anything like that. Every one of them is related to the 
NDAA bill, and there is sincere feeling on our side that these 
amendments should be debated and voted on.
  This is not an attempt to block or obstruct; this is an attempt to 
come together. As we know, to make this work, we need bipartisan 
agreement. All of them, as I said, are related to the NDAA bill.
  The modification I am asking for also includes the two Republican 
amendments, one from Senator Cornyn and one from Senator Paul.
  I appreciate the chairman's desire to start voting on these 
amendments, but I hope he will modify his request so that several more 
Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle can amend the bill as 
well, and we can move forward.
  So I ask this question of my friend the chairman: Will the Senator 
modify his request to include the following amendments to be called up 
and voted on in relation to Sanders No. 1788, in lieu of Sanders 
amendment No. 1790--that is the 10 percent cut to the Pentagon; Tester 
No. 1972 on Agent Orange; Shaheen No. 1729 on the PFAS study; 
Gillibrand No. 1755 on transgender policy; Manchin No. 2361 on NNSA; 
Menendez No. 2396 on the Bounty Act; Van Hollen-Rubio No. 1845 on the 
DETER Act; and Schatz-Murkowski No. 2252 on the section 1033 program?
  I ask the Senator to modify his request to add those amendments, and 
then Members on our side who have serious concerns can have their 
amendments considered.
  Mr. INHOFE. First of all, let me respond by saying that this has been 
a long process, and it is one that has involved leadership on both 
sides, and we are attempting to do that. I think that by looking at the 
list I have read off, the Senator will see a lot of Democrats and a lot 
of Republicans there. For that reason I think we have an adequate 
number that several of us have agreed on, so I would object to 
modification of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection to the modification is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object, I hope we can continue 
these discussions in a productive and fruitful way, but at this point I 
must object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                                 Russia

  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to speak about the disturbing 
reporting regarding Russian efforts to harm Americans in Afghanistan 
through payments to the Taliban and the Haqqani network. This is deadly 
serious and we--the Congress and the American public--must get answers 
to a number of questions.
  When did the United States first receive information suggesting that 
Russia was providing financial support to Taliban or HQN operatives to 
kill American troops?
  What investigation has been done by DOD or intel agencies to 
corroborate the charge?
  What investigations have been done into the deaths of U.S. troops in 
Afghanistan during the relevant time period to determine whether they 
might be linked to Russian payments?
  Was information about this allegation contained in the President's 
daily briefing in late February? If so, why are the President and the 
White House maintaining so strongly that the President was never 
briefed?
  When did the United States first brief allies--specifically, the 
United Kingdom--on the intelligence concerning the Russian bounty 
allegations?
  What events led to an administrative interagency meeting on this 
topic in late March?
  What options were explored at that meeting? Were any undertaken?
  To the extent that there is a difference of opinion about the 
existence of such a program among U.S. agencies, what explains the 
differing conclusions?
  Did President Trump discuss the matter in any of the numerous phone

[[Page S4098]]

calls he had with Russian President Putin from late March through this 
month?
  If the President knew of the concern, why did he persist in trying to 
get Russia invited as a participant to the G7 meeting to be held in the 
United States this fall?
  Why hasn't the President condemned the existence of any such program 
or at least pledged that there would be serious consequences if such a 
program existed?
  That Russia might behave in a hostile manner toward U.S. troops in 
Afghanistan would not be a surprise based upon Russia's track record of 
bad behavior all over the globe, but what has been surprising has been 
the administration's actions regarding this explosive allegation, and I 
believe the Senate must get to the bottom of it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romney). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Loeffler). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, since last week, the Senate--ostensibly 
one of the great deliberative bodies in the world--supposedly has been 
``debating'' the $740 billion National Defense Authorization Act. It 
has been a very, very silent debate because of the 700 amendments that 
have been filed to this bill. There have been no rollcall votes on any 
of them. I do understand that in the managers' amendment, some of the 
noncontroversial, nonsignificant amendments have been accepted and 
absorbed, and that is fine. We have had a vigorous debate, but nobody 
in the world has heard that debate because there has not been one 
amendment here on the floor.
  Knowing the way the Senate does business, I worry very much--and I 
hope I am wrong, and I will do my best to prevent it, but I worry very 
much that we are supposed to be getting out of here for the Fourth of 
July break tomorrow night. Right now, it is a little after 2 p.m. on 
Wednesday, and we are out of here on Thursday.
  Given the fact that we are talking about 53 percent of the 
discretionary budget of the U.S.A., I am just a little bit worried 
about how many real amendments, significant amendments, are going to be 
offered.
  Let us be clear that over the last year, we have been part of what I 
consider to be the biggest do-nothing Senate in the modern history of 
this country. This country faces enormous crises in terms of the 
pandemic, faces enormous crises in terms of an economic meltdown, 
enormous crises in terms of racial injustice and police brutality, 
enormous crises in terms of being the only major country on Earth not 
to guarantee healthcare to all people as a human right, and enormous 
crises that in Siberia last week, the temperature was 100 degrees, 
which is frightening the scientific community because they understand 
this is the tip of the iceberg regarding climate change. We have all 
these crises out there, and nothing much happens here in the Senate.
  Well, I think maybe it might be a good idea to start some real debate 
right here. I have introduced six amendments that are significant. I 
will discuss each of them. Other Members, Democrats and Republicans, 
have also introduced significant amendments.
  Given the fact we have done virtually nothing over the last year, I 
think it is not inappropriate to have some serious debate on one of the 
very major pieces of legislation we will be dealing with.
  We are talking about a bill that will spend some $740 billion. That 
is more money in terms of military spending than the next 11 nations 
combined. Does anybody have a problem with that? Some of us do. Maybe 
others don't. Let's debate it.
  We are talking about a bill that will be spending more money on the 
Pentagon than we did during the height of the Cold War and the height 
of the wars in Vietnam and Korea. Does anyone have a problem with that? 
Well, I do. Maybe some other people do. Maybe you don't. Tell me why 
you think we should be spending more money on the military today in 
terms of inflation than we did during the war in Vietnam. Let's debate 
it.
  We are talking about a bill that will provide 53 percent of the 
entire discretionary budget to the bloat and wasteful Pentagon at a 
time when the Defense Department cannot even pass an independent audit. 
We have a huge budget for the Pentagon. They cannot pass an independent 
audit, and the response of the Senate is, well, let's give them even 
more money. It may make sense to some people. It doesn't make sense to 
me.
  In my view, it would be rather disgraceful for us to leave town, 
recess the Senate for 2 weeks without getting a vote on a single 
amendment and then come back in a couple of weeks to pass a $740 
billion Defense bill without any opportunity to amend that bill.
  If the horrific pandemic that we are now experiencing, where tens of 
thousands of people are coming down with the virus every single day--if 
the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that national security, the 
well-being of our people, and protecting our people is a lot more than 
just building bombs and missiles and jet fighters and tanks and 
submarines. Our people are in trouble today in an unprecedented way 
with the pandemic and with an economic meltdown in which tens of 
millions of people have lost their jobs over the last couple of months. 
We have to focus on how we protect those people. It is not just 
spending money on planes and guns and bombs.

  In order to begin the process of addressing some of the most 
important issues facing our country, I have introduced five amendments, 
all of which I think are important and all of which I believe need to 
have a vote and a debate. Let me very briefly explain what those 
amendments are and what they would do.
  The first amendment would reduce the military budget by 10 percent 
and use that $74 billion in savings to invest in distressed communities 
in every State in this country that have been ravaged by extreme 
poverty, mass incarceration, deindustrialization, and decades of 
neglect.
  It is no secret to anybody that the American people are hurting all 
across this country. We have communities where unemployment today is 
20, 25, 30 percent, where people are sleeping out on the streets, where 
schools are underfunded, where decent-quality childcare is virtually 
not available, and where air and water pollution is rampant. It is time 
that we stop turning our backs on those communities.
  What we are doing right now is focusing attention on the fact that 40 
million Americans are living in poverty. Half of our people are living 
paycheck to paycheck. And maybe--just maybe--instead of investing more 
money in nuclear weapons and submarines and God knows what else, maybe 
we want to invest in our own people, in jobs and healthcare and 
education, so that they can live their lives with dignity and security.
  I believe right now, in the midst of all of the crises this country 
faces--the crisis of the pandemic, the crisis of the economic meltdown, 
the crisis of racial injustice, the crisis of 100 million people being 
uninsured or underinsured, the crisis of climate change--I think the 
American people want real transformation. They are tired of the status 
quo. They want a government that represents all of us, not the 1 
percent and wealthy campaign contributors.
  I do understand that the people behind this military budget who love 
it so much are the military-industrial complex and the defense 
contractors. They are doing phenomenally well. It is a great budget for 
them. Their CEOs make tens of millions of dollars a year. They make 
huge profits every single year. It is a good budget for them. But maybe 
we may want to get our priorities right and have a good budget for 
working families and low-income families in America. That is what my 
amendment does.
  This amendment is being cosponsored by Senators Markey and Warren. It 
is also being supported by over 60 organizations throughout this 
country representing millions and millions of people, including 
organizations like Public Citizen, Union of Concerned Scientists, 
Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Coalition on Human Needs. 
These organizations are saying that maybe--just maybe--instead of 
investing in weapons of destruction, instead

[[Page S4099]]

of spending more money on the military than the next 11 nations 
combined, maybe we should invest in our people.
  What this amendment would do is provide funding, again, for 1,000 
distressed communities, from Vermont to Oklahoma, which would receive 
Federal funding to hire more public school teachers, provide nutritious 
meals to children and parents, and offer free tuition to public 
colleges, universities, or trade schools.
  At this pivotal moment in American history, we have to make a 
fundamental decision that we want to continue spending billions on 
endless wars in the Middle East, on weapons of mass destruction--of 
which we have more than enough--or do we provide decent jobs and 
education and healthcare for millions of people in our country?
  Further, a major reason why there is so much waste, fraud, and abuse 
at the Pentagon is, in fact, that the Defense Department remains the 
only Federal agency in America that hasn't been able to pass an 
independent audit, which deals with the second amendment that I have 
introduced.
  I don't think it is too much to say that the largest agency of the 
Federal Government has to pass an independent audit.
  There is nobody in the Senate who does not believe there is massive 
waste and fraud at the Pentagon. Defense contractor after defense 
contractor has pled guilty to fraud. We have massive cost overruns.

  In the second amendment that I am offering, which has been 
cosponsored by Senator Grassley, a longtime Republican leader here; 
Senator Lee, a Republican from Utah; and Senator Wyden, of Oregon, all 
that we are asking is that there be an independent audit of the Defense 
Department and that it be completed no later than fiscal year 2025. It 
is not a very radical idea.
  The third amendment I am offering is one that, I would hope and 
expect, would have wide support right here. I think it does have 
support among the American people, and it certainly has widespread 
support among the medical community and the epidemiologists of this 
country.
  Just yesterday, I was participating in a hearing of the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. We had the leading experts in 
this country, including several representatives of the Trump 
administration--Dr. Fauci and others--talking about the pandemic and 
what we could do about it. There was widespread consensus. Nobody, I 
think, has any doubt anymore, except maybe Donald Trump, that masks are 
a very, very important preventive measure. They are not going to solve 
all of the problems, but the evidence is overwhelming that the people 
who wear masks in public, when they are around other people, are less 
likely to transmit the virus or to receive the virus. Nobody doubts 
that anymore.
  So the question that we have to ask ourselves is this: How does it 
happen that, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world and 
with the strongest economy in the world, we have doctors and nurses 
today who are dealing with people with COVID-19 and don't even have the 
personal protective equipment that they need? How in God's name does 
that happen?
  We are spending 18 percent of our GDP on healthcare--twice as much as 
any other country. Yet we cannot provide a $1 mask to a doctor or to a 
nurse whose life is at stake. It is not only doctors and nurses.
  What a number of countries around the world are doing, which is very 
smart, is producing or acquiring large numbers of high-quality masks, 
and they are distributing those masks to all of the households in their 
countries. We should be making sure that every household in this 
country has the masks that each needs. That will save lives. There is 
an estimate from the University of Washington that it could save 30,000 
lives during this pandemic if 95 percent of the American people were to 
wear masks. It would also save us a substantial sum of money because it 
is a lot cheaper to invest in masks than in the hospitalizations for 
those who have the virus. I should mention that other countries that 
are not as wealthy as we are--countries like South Korea, France, 
Turkey, Austria, and others--are doing just that.
  Again, this is an idea that has won support from not only Dr. Fauci 
but from other leading healthcare experts who testified before the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions yesterday. That is 
the third amendment--making sure that we utilize the Defense Production 
Act to produce the masks that our medical professionals and the 
American people need. We can save tens of thousands of lives and 
hundreds of billions of dollars by doing it.
  The fourth amendment I have filed would prohibit funding for military 
aid and logistical support for the disastrous, Saudi-led war in Yemen. 
I believe it is past time that we put an end to our unconstitutional 
and unauthorized participation in this war.
  On this issue, I am certainly not alone. A bipartisan majority of the 
U.S. Senate has already voted three times--not once, not twice, but 
three times--to halt all U.S. military support for the Saudi-led war in 
Yemen. It is time for us to do that again--this time, not just in words 
but in action. We should have no money going toward U.S. participation 
in this horrible war, which is destroying a nation with some of the 
poorest, most desperate people on Earth.
  So that is the fourth amendment, and I think it would be hard for 
anybody here to deny that it is an important amendment. This has 
already been, in one form or another, passed three times. So let's get 
some teeth into it.
  The last amendment that I have filed would reduce the defense budget 
by one-tenth of 1 percent--not a lot of money--and use that money to 
make our Nation safer by reaching out to people throughout the world 
and expanding educational and cultural exchange programs.
  In other words, the theory behind this whole bill is that, by 
spending $740 billion on the building of planes and tanks and guns and 
the most sophisticated weapons of mass destruction in the history of 
the world, it will make us safer. Well, I am not so sure. Maybe what 
makes us safer is when we break down the fears and the hatred that 
exist between peoples all over the world. Maybe what makes us safer is 
when we get to know each other--that is, as human beings--whether we 
are Chinese or Russians or Iranians or Brazilians or Canadians. Maybe 
we all share the same human aspirations.
  Throughout history, it has always been easy to demonize people you 
don't know--always easy. That is what demagogues have always done. We 
are fearful of Jews, of Blacks, of the Irish, of Italians, and of gay 
people. It is so easy to demonize people with whom we are not 
comfortable and don't know. They are not in our communities, and we 
don't know anybody. Let's demonize the people of Iran, and let's 
demonize the people of China and Russia.
  This is not saying that I or anybody else here is in agreement with 
their policies, but are weapons the only approach we have toward them? 
Yes, we need a strong military, and I believe in a strong military. Do 
you know what I also believe? When we have kids from the United States 
who go to other countries and when other countries send their kids, 
their farmers, their doctors, their nurses to America and when we get 
to know each other, we have a shot at breaking down the irrational 
hatred which foments so many problems throughout the world.
  As a former mayor, I can tell you--and I am not alone--that this idea 
of sister cities is certainly not a radical idea. I suspect that almost 
everybody here in the Senate comes from a State in which a sister city 
program exists or that you have programs with cities in other 
countries. In Vermont, we have a number of them. I started several of 
them when I was the mayor of Burlington. It was a beautiful thing to 
see--kids from another country coming to our country and our people 
going to other countries and learning.
  All I am asking for is one-tenth of 1 percent--$7 billion--no, less 
than that. What am I talking about? All I am asking for is $700 million 
to encourage cultural and educational exchange programs. By taking this 
tiny fraction from our defense budget--one-tenth of 1 percent--and 
applying it to these exchange programs, we will send a message about 
the critical role these exchange programs play. They exist all over 
this country already, but I want to see them grow, in supporting not

[[Page S4100]]

only American security but our common, global security. Therefore, I 
have listed and described five amendments
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment and call up the following amendments en bloc: Senate 
amendment Nos. 1788, 1920, 1789, 1919, and 1918; that they be reported 
by number; further, that there be 2 hours of debate on the amendments, 
equally divided and controlled by me or by my designee and by Senator 
Inhofe or his designee; and that, following the use or yielding back of 
that time, the Senate vote on the adoption of the amendments, in the 
order listed, without intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I object; although, I would like to have 
the opportunity to look at all five of these amendments to see which 
ones would not be consistent with the negotiation that is taking place 
right now.
  I would like to make sure that everyone understands that, at this 
very moment, Democrats and Republicans are looking at a lot of 
amendments, as we have done every year for 60 years, to make sure that 
we are getting the right amendments in order to make the bill the best 
we can.
  Now, it will just take a few minutes for me to do this. Until then, I 
reserve the right to object. If we have a timing problem on this, I 
will object, but it might be that there is one I would like to consider 
at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to be recognized in order to 
make a comment.
  First of all, I have great respect for the Senator. I have worked 
with him many times, and we have really gotten quite a bit 
accomplished. I know that my friend is sincere in the statements that 
he makes, but I find myself in a different position.
  I see what has happened in previous administrations, and, during the 
last 5 years of the Obama administration, I saw when, in his budget, 
the President reduced the military by 25 percent at the same time that 
China was increasing its by 83 percent and Russia was increasing its by 
34 percent. I am sensitive to this, and it is one of the considerations 
we make.
  I do object to this amendment, but I am going to work with the 
Senator to see which of these might be appropriate and can be sellable 
to a majority of the people in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, Senator Inhofe is right. He and I have 
known each other for years and, I think, respect each other. We have 
very, very different philosophical leanings, but that does not mean we 
cannot respect each other.
  All I would say to my friend from Oklahoma is that the function of 
the Senate is for 100 Members to determine what is important, not just 
a few. What may not be important to me may be important to you, and 
what may be important to you may not be important to me. Yet I think, 
especially on a bill of this significance, the Members--Democrats and 
Republicans--have a right to come forward and bring forth amendments. 
If I don't like an amendment and you have brought forth the amendment, 
it is likely I am going to vote against it, and you are going to vote 
against my amendment. I get it. It is called democracy. It is the 
process we go through here. I just cannot understand why we are not 
voting on amendments. When we get back, I would rather see a process 
take place whereby dozens of amendments are brought up and debated and 
voted up or voted down. That is what, I think, this Senate is supposed 
to stand for.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for one more 
comment so I may address that, Senator Reed and I are both in 
agreement. We have been wanting amendments. We have been asking on a 
daily basis--now for about 2 months--for Members to bring their 
amendments down so we can consider amendments. We are in the process 
now of seeing which amendments we are able to bring up that we might 
have reached an agreement on. We are doing that. It is not an easy 
process, and it does take a little bit of time. Yet I am hopeful that 
we will have amendments. I anticipate we will.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend, Jack Reed 
is a good friend of mine, and I know that you and he are working hard 
and well together. Yet you are two Senators, and there are 98 others of 
us, and on what you two may agree to be important or not to be 
important others may disagree.
  All I am saying to the Senator is to let people bring up their 
amendments. If the Senator doesn't like it and I don't like it, we will 
vote against it. I just don't know why we are restricting amendments in 
a Senate which is supposed to be one of the great deliberative bodies 
in the world. The world is supposed to look at us, but they are not 
looking well at us when a few people determine what is going to be 
voted on or not.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would respond by saying that I don't 
take issue with that, but I will say that we all remember what happened 
a year ago when this bill was up. One of our Members objected to all 
amendments coming up, and, as a result, no one got an amendment up.
  That isn't happening this year because the individuals who were 
opposed to amendments last year are no longer opposed to amendments. We 
are just trying to--with the understanding and the realization that 
things are done in the Senate with unanimous consent and that one 
person has a lot of power to stop a lot of other people, we don't want 
that to happen. We want to encourage amendments, and we are going to 
try to consider as many as we can.
  Mr. SANDERS. I would simply say to my friend, he is quite right--
unanimous consent gives every Member a lot of power, and I do not want 
to be objectionable, but I feel very strongly on this issue, and I hope 
we can work on something.
  Mr. INHOFE. Thank you.
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                                S. 4049

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to continue this 
debate about the Armed Services bill we are considering on the floor 
today, and I would just note for my colleagues that I know that it is a 
general practice, but my colleague from Vermont is bringing up a very 
big, important point about amendments, and that is that the NDAA is 
marked up in a secret, closed-door session. It is not like we all have 
a bright light, and we know what is in there. In fact, they held the 
language for 3 weeks and then now, all of a sudden, thrust it onto the 
Senate floor and then don't want us to offer any amendments.
  In my case, I am objecting, along with the Senator from Vermont, as 
to a major shift in policy that is in this proposal that shifts money 
away from the Department of Energy and onto nuclear weapons, where we 
didn't even vote on it. We didn't vote on it, and members of the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee are in disagreement about this, the 
fact that we weren't consulted and that it is basically raiding 
jurisdiction.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter signed by myself, Senator Lamar Alexander, Senator Heinrich, 
Senator Cassidy, Senator Wyden, Senator Barrasso, Senator Risch, and 
Senator Sanders from Vermont.
  We object. We are members of the committee. We are very senior 
members of the committee. We understand the DOE budget. We understand 
the DOE responsibilities. We don't think it is right for somebody to 
mark up, in a closed-door session, in the middle of the National 
Defense Act, a taking of money, basically neutering the Secretary of 
Energy, basically saying: You only have half of your budget because we 
are going to dictate over at the Department of Defense exactly how you 
are going to spend those dollars.
  So that is a big power grab by a very few people and certainly 
deserves a vote by the U.S. Senate. It certainly deserves a bright 
light by the American people because not only are we talking about this 
from the perspective of the taking away DOE resources and

[[Page S4101]]

focus from the Secretary of Energy, we are also talking about putting 
into the hands of the Department of Defense what has been civilian 
oversight--civilian oversight of the production of our nuclear weapons.
  So why is this so important, who is in charge of DOE's budget? Well, 
I think the Secretary of Energy is. I think he comes before Congress. I 
think he discusses with Congress what that budget is. I think he talks 
and we talk and we review his nominees and the work they do on this.
  For me, in the State of Washington, we have the largest nuclear 
cleanup site in the entire world. So cleaning up Hanford from the 
plutonium production that was done for our efforts in World War II is a 
massive, multibillion-dollar-a-year cleanup. I wish it wasn't that 
much, but it is, and it has been for decades.
  And people constantly look at that $2 billion and think: We can shave 
some of those dollars off. I am here to tell you, you can't, not with 
leaky tanks leaking into the groundwater and moving toward the Columbia 
River--no. We cannot have people taking half of the DOE budget and then 
basically deciding that the Department of Defense is going to decide 
what to do with it.
  Hanford isn't the only site. There are other cleanup sites--Paducah. 
There are still things to do with Savannah River. There are cleanup 
sites all over the United States.
  To, in the NDAA bill, basically, preclude us from even discussing 
such a major policy change that is not supported by the Secretary of 
Energy, not supported by the chairwoman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee or the ranking member, Senator Manchin, whose 
amendment we would like to seek a vote on--so I submit to the Record 
this letter from my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee also objecting to this language
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         United States Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, July 1, 2020.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Schumer,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jim Inhofe,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jack Reed,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer, 
     Chairman Inhofe, and Ranking Member Reed: As the Senate 
     considers the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization 
     Act (NDAA), we write to express our opposition to the 
     inclusion of controversial and far reaching provisions that 
     would fundamentally alter the Department of Energy's (DOE) 
     responsibilities for the nuclear weapons budget.
       As members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources, we write in support of Secretary Brouillette's 
     June 29, 2020 letter to Chairman Inhofe and share his 
     concerns that provisions in the Senate NDAA bill undermine 
     DOE's ability to meet its mission goals and responsibility 
     for maintaining the viability of the nation's nuclear 
     deterrent.
       As currently written, the Senate NDAA bill would strip the 
     Secretary of Energy of the ability to manage some of the most 
     sensitive national security programs that account for almost 
     half of the Department's budget. Such changes could impede 
     accountability and Congressional oversight, as well as 
     imperil future funding for other critical DOE 
     responsibilities such as promoting scientific and 
     technological innovation, managing our National Laboratories, 
     sponsoring basic research in the physical sciences, and 
     ensuring cleanup of the nation's nuclear weapons complex.
       Sweeping changes impacting civilian control of our nation's 
     nuclear weapons programs should only be made in consultation 
     and coordination with the committee of jurisdiction in an 
     open and transparent manner. The changes included in the 
     Senate NDAA bill have been met with opposition from the Trump 
     Administration, former Secretaries of Energy, recent NNSA 
     Administrators, and the Congressional Advisory Panel on the 
     Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise.
       We therefore request that the provisions be removed from 
     the pending bill or that the Senate be allowed to vote on the 
     relevant amendments filed by Ranking Member Manchin.
           Sincerely,
         Maria Cantwell, Martin Heinrich, Ron Wyden, Mazie K. 
           Hirono, Bernie Sanders, Lamar Alexander, Bill Cassidy, 
           John Barrasso, James Risch.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, what else is at stake?
  Also, at stake are our National Laboratories. Our National 
Laboratories do incredibly hard work for us. I know what ours does in 
the Pacific Northwest because they are an expert on cybersecurity. They 
are an expert on detection. They are an expert on terrorism and 
fighting terrorism.
  So now, all of a sudden, you are going to let the National Nuclear 
Security Agency decide what that budget looks like because they are 
going to take more money from it.
  Now is not the time to allow the Department of Defense, without our 
oversight that we are sent here to give, to decide what this budget 
should look like. That is not their role and responsibility.
  So the fact that somebody thinks they can stick this in, in a closed-
door session, and then jam us, without a vote of this body to consider 
such a major policy change, is appalling.
  Now, I know that people tried to do this 2 years ago or a year and a 
half ago and basically got taken out by the House of Representatives, 
but that is no excuse for doing it now. People jam so many things into 
this bill. Last time, they jammed in basically the relicensing of a 
hydroelectric dam. Basically, written into this for the chairman was 
the revision that said they no longer have to be regulated by the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
  Well, I can tell you, there are lots of people in the State of 
Washington who would probably love to know that the hydro system didn't 
have to go through FERC relicensing, but they did have to go through 
FERC relicensing.
  And so the fact that that was in a panoply of things stuffed into 
NDAA, in the final negotiation in the House, they couldn't get it out. 
So we are being held hostage one more time on the NDAA bill for bad 
policy that has not had the broad discussion of the U.S. Senate.
  So I would say to my colleagues: If you care about nuclear waste 
cleanup, if you care about the agenda of our national laboratories--and 
I will tell you, you think people are threatening you right now? People 
are threatening us on cybersecurity. People don't stick a sub into your 
waters anymore, taunting you or flying aircraft overhead; they 
basically put software tools into your powerplants, into your military 
sites. We need our National Laboratories to do their job, not have the 
money subverted by some agency that we don't see, they don't come to 
us--they go to a few Members. They go to the Senator from Oklahoma, but 
they don't come see us and talk about their agenda. They basically just 
want an increase, and instead of going through the normal legislative 
process, they basically are trying to short circuit both appropriators 
and authorizers on this important issue.
  So if people are proud of that language, if they think it stands, 
they think it is the right policy, then they should let us have a vote. 
They should let us have a discussion of who is in charge of DOE's 
budget because, I guarantee you, most Americans think it is the 
Secretary of Energy and not a 
five-, seven-member subcabinet level over at DOD.
  This is appalling, and it has to stop.


                        Tribute to Joel Connelly

  Mr. President, if I could, while I am out here on the floor, pay 
tribute to one of the most iconic newspapers in the State of 
Washington, the Seattle P-I, and one of its noted journalists who is 
retiring this week after 47 years writing for the organization.
  This newspaper, which was part of the Northwest history for decades, 
finally stopped the print edition several years ago, but it has still 
been online. Joel Connelly has been an icon of the Northwest, writing 
about Presidents for decades; writing about Northwest policy, such as 
the outdoors; writing about the relationship, on international issues, 
particularly with Canada.
  Joel said it best. Once he said about his employer, the P-I: ``We do 
our best to inform you, to intrigue you, amuse you, and at times get 
under your skin.''
  I miss those days of journalism today, where someone has so much 
knowledge and information about our region, about politics in general, 
about society that they help keep us informed and engaged.

[[Page S4102]]

  Joel once interviewed Bill Clinton on Air Force One and obviously 
interviewed many Presidents--both Bushes, Clinton, Obama.
  He once was a Pulitzer Prize runner-up for his coverage of the 
Washington Public Power Supply System, and obviously he covered Hanford 
issues, which I just talked about many times, and many northern border 
issues.
  He probably was best known in his coverage of Idaho Governor Cecil 
Andrus and wrote a book about him and the many fights that happened in 
the Northwest on land issues for many, many years.
  So I can't even begin to explain what it will be like without Joel 
Connelly at the helm of political national commentary for us in the 
Pacific Northwest.
  Nobody sharper. Nobody keener. Nobody more experienced. Nobody who 
struck more fear in me when I had to get on the phone with him because 
chances were he knew the issue even better than I did, and I had been 
pretty studied on it, but that is what you get after 47 years in 
journalism.
  So I wish him all the best, but I also hope his retirement is a call 
for all of us to remember how important journalism really is; that the 
tool and trade of people who basically cover these policies, understand 
them, and help give commentary in their columns or in their journalism 
and oversight is what helps us keep our democracy here in the United 
States.
  So, Joel, I know you will be up there on Whidbey Island and you will 
be watching us from afar. I know we are not done hearing the last of 
you, but I know we have heard a great commentary for 47 years of the P-
I and your comments, and we greatly appreciate it
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


              United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the United States, Mexico, and 
Canada launched a new chapter in our historic partnership with entry 
into force of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement--USMCA for short.
  Thanks to the decisive leadership of President Trump, the USMCA will 
open the door for robust economic growth.
  At the same time, regarding his decisive leadership as President, 
this isn't an issue just now. This is something the President said in 
2016; that the NAFTA was the worst trade agreement that we have had, 
and he was going to get rid of it or revise it. Most Presidents run on 
a platform. They may not serve on that platform. This President is 
serving on that platform, and today the USMCA going into force for the 
first time is absolute proof of this President keeping his promises and 
getting the job done.
  He also needs to compliment and thank Ambassador Lighthizer, the 
negotiator on this whole agreement.
  The USMCA brings to bear, then, a trilateral trade agreement that 
will lift prosperity across North America. The USMCA paves the way for 
freer markets and fairer trade. It replaces NAFTA and puts America in a 
better position to expand market access for U.S. workers, farmers, and 
businesses.
  Specifically, the USMCA modernizes rules of origin for autos, 
sanitary and phytosanitary standards, intellectual property rules, 
digital trade, financial services, customs, labor, environment, and 
more.
  Some of these issues I just mentioned weren't even around 30 years 
ago when NAFTA was negotiated. Modernizing NAFTA into the 21st century 
was the right thing to do.
  As we enter into this agreement, the world is navigating uncertain 
times, as we know. The unprecedented public health crisis has turned 
the economy upside down. Now, more than ever, our farmers, businesses, 
and workers need and deserve certainty that they can count on us to 
turn things around and accelerate economic recovery.
  As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over 
trade, I will be keeping a close eye on the implementation of this 
historic trade agreement. I want to ensure that any kinks that come up 
are ironed out with appropriate flexibility, taking into consideration 
unforeseen circumstances from the pandemic, such as automakers and 
others who were shut down or repurposed operations to produce medical 
equipment, and that is just one example. I also will keep watch to hold 
accountable all stakeholders and ensure full compliance with the trade 
agreement.

  Now more than ever, North America must work together to harvest the 
fruits of the USMCA. That is how we can foster investment, innovation, 
and job creation for the 478 million people who live in these 3 
countries.
  The U.S. International Trade Commission estimated that the USMCA 
within 5 years would raise U.S. GDP by $68 billion, forecasting 176,000 
new jobs in the United States. That is music to the ears for everyone 
in America who has been hard hit by the pandemic's economic fallout.
  Farmers in my State have enjoyed one of the best planting seasons in 
decades. However, our livestock, poultry, and biofuels producers have 
faced catastrophic disruption to their operations since the virus swept 
across the country. Iowa is the Nation's No. 1 producer of pork, eggs, 
and corn. Our economy depends on exports to grow and for our economy to 
flourish.
  American farmers depend on exports to pay their bills and earn a 
living. Farmers simply want to grow and produce for the marketplace, 
not for government bailouts.
  Today's inauguration of the USMCA offers a bright ray of hope for 
North America to plow forward and to plant the seeds for a robust 
economic recovery.
  With every trade issue that comes, it is always important to remember 
what President Kennedy said in his Presidency about trade legislation 
and the benefits of it--that if it benefits one country, it benefits 
the others. He said that ``a rising tide lifts all boats.''
  I am confident the USMCA will steer America's workers, farmers, and 
businesses to better days ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

                          ____________________