[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 103 (Wednesday, June 3, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2679-S2684]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Drew B. Tipton, of 
Texas, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of 
Texas.
  Thereupon, the Senate proceeded to consider the nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 7010

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in a moment I will ask unanimous consent 
to pass legislation that makes urgently needed reforms to the PPP to 
make the program much more functional for all--underline ``all''--small 
businesses.
  Let me just name a few of the changes. First, it expands the loan 
period from 8 weeks to 24 weeks. Currently, workers may be brought back 
for the 8 weeks, but what good is it if they are again laid off after 
that short period? It is unrealistic, and small businesses need 
assistance that can cover the full length of this crisis.
  Second, the legislation removes the 25-percent restriction imposed by 
the Trump administration on the use of loans for fixed costs, rents, 
mortgages, utilities, and replaces it with new 60-40 payroll-to-
nonpayroll expenses. This change will continue PPP's support in getting 
workers back on the payroll but giving small businesses more 
flexibility to survive in this crisis, which is essential to the long-
term employment prospect of the workers.
  For my home State of New York, we have high rents, high utility 
costs. Many businesses were frozen out when there was 25 percent, but 
40 percent will get them in, and that applies to the more high-cost 
areas throughout the country. Even though these are small businesses, 
they are struggling under those costs.
  Third, the proposal extends the program to the end of the year and 
makes December 31 the deadline to rehire workers in order to get full 
forgiveness on the loan. We have a long way to go before the economy 
will come back in real ways. This will give businesses a more realistic 
timeline to get the help they need while bringing back employees.
  The bill ensures any amounts of the loan not forgiven will have at 
least a 5-

[[Page S2680]]

year term of repayment so that small businesses will not be saddled 
with the need to be repaid within 2 years. The impact of this crisis is 
long-lasting and requires lenient terms. We have all heard from small 
businesses in our States that while they are glad there is a program--
they would have gone under without it; it is a very good thing--it 
needed some changes to make it work for so many small businesses that 
have been left out or rejected.
  I say to small businesses across the country: After this changes, 
apply again even if you applied the first time because it will be 
easier to meet the requirements and criteria.
  This is not controversial. The House of Representatives passed this 
legislation with a vote of 417 to 1. We can't wait any longer. 
Businesses are really suffering for lack of these changes, and to wait 
and wait and wait--if someone wants to make changes, let's do it when 
we get to the Heroes bill, to COVID 4. But to delay another week or 2 
weeks or 3 weeks to get this all bollixed up--we can't afford to wait. 
Our small businesses cannot afford to wait. These changes are 
universally agreed to as good ones, and we shouldn't let someone who 
wants a small change say: Let's stop it until we go forward.
  The bill has the broad support of small businesses across industries, 
mom-and-pop restaurants, underserved businesses, minority businesses, 
nonprofits that have been hit hard by this pandemic. It should be 
passed by the Senate right now.
  These fixes will not solve every problem in PPP. Too many underserved 
small businesses and minority small businesses are still struggling to 
get the help they need in these troubled times. These will not diminish 
in any way the urgency of passing legislation like the Heroes Act, 
which provides additional help not only for businesses but for 
homeowners, renters, essential workers, medical facilities, local and 
State governments, and more. Our Republican colleagues must come to the 
table and work with us to pass future reforms.
  Nor will it divert our caucus in its quest for police reform and 
racial justice. We have to do that as well.
  But today we have an opportunity to pass meaningful reforms that our 
small businesses need now. We must get this done. Businesses are going 
under every day. Small businesses that have struggled and sweated--my 
dad's was one of them--that need help and can't get help because of 
certain problems in this bill will be so relieved when we pass this 
legislation, which has already passed the House.
  I want to particularly thank two people on our side who have worked 
long and hard on this legislation, who will speak now. One is Senator 
Cardin from Maryland, the ranking member of the Committee on Small 
Business, and one is Senator Shaheen, the senior Senator from New 
Hampshire, who is also a very active member of the Small Business 
Committee. I hope that passing this legislation in a bipartisan way as 
it did in the House will give us momentum to keep working on the 
medical, economic, and racial crises that still affect our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator Schumer for 
bringing this issue to the floor at this time. Senator Schumer has been 
a great leader on what we need to do to help respond to COVID-19. He 
recognized from the beginning that we needed a balanced program to deal 
with the health pandemic, with the Marshall Plan, to deal with the help 
to our State and local governments, and to deal with the economic 
consequences of COVID-19.
  Senator Schumer helped us develop a balanced approach to deal with 
the economic challenges while, yes, helping the individual through 
unemployment insurance and direct checks from the IRS but also helping 
our businesses. For small businesses we created new tools; for larger 
businesses we had loans.
  I was proud to be part of a task force that was charged with 
developing the tools for small business. I want to thank my partner 
Senator Shaheen for her incredible help and leadership in crafting the 
programs of the Paycheck Protection Program while also dealing with the 
economic disaster loan program, which was new and a loan forgiveness 
program.
  We did this working with Senators Rubio and Collins. It was truly 
bipartisan. We did it in a matter of literally a few days--a week or 
so, and we were able to get this program crafted in a way that it 
provided incredible relief to the small businesses of our country.
  So today, what is the record? There are 4.4 million loans that have 
been issued under the Paycheck Protection Program, and $510 billion has 
been made available to small businesses in this country. It literally 
has been a lifeline allowing small companies to continue to exist. You 
see, with small companies, we get more job growth than bigger 
companies. We get ideas on how to deal with economic challenges. But in 
economic downturns they don't have the liquidity and resilience that 
larger companies have. That is why we had to pass this type of help. We 
did that in March, and when we passed those bills in March, quite 
frankly we thought that by now the economy would be in a much better 
shape than it is and that small businesses would be able to return to 
somewhat of a normal economy. Well, that is not the case.
  We recognize that certain businesses--such as those in the 
hospitality field, health clubs, caterers, museums, and the list goes 
on and on--have virtually not been able to open at all yet, and they 
are going to need more help than just the 8 weeks that was planned in 
the Paycheck Protection Program. That is why the legislation that 
passed the House was part of this bipartisan, bicameral effort to give 
additional flexibility for those who had the paycheck protection plan 
loans. We recognize now that 8 weeks is not long enough, and that is 
why this legislation would change that 8 weeks to 24 weeks, giving 
small businesses a greater opportunity to qualify for a maximum amount 
of loan forgiveness and giving small businesses more flexibility on how 
they allocate those funds between payroll and nonpayroll expenses.
  As we heard today in our first oversight hearing in the Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, small businesses are 
different. Maybe 8 weeks works for some, but maybe it doesn't work for 
others. Maybe 75 percent of payroll works for one but doesn't work for 
another. We need a program that can fit the vast majority of small 
businesses, and the changes represented in the House bill represents 
those changes that if we had recognized in March that this pandemic 
would have continuing impact on our economy well beyond 8 weeks, would 
have certainly been considered during that period of time.
  Now is the time to pass this. I just want to underscore this point. 
The 8 weeks will expire for the first loans that were issued under the 
PPP program next week. Small businesses need predictability. They need 
to know whether this is going to be the law or not before they apply 
for their forgiveness. So we don't have any extra time. We need to pass 
this right now. It is a bipartisan effort and is a bipartisan bill.
  What Senator Schumer said is absolutely correct. We will have other 
opportunities to deal with other provisions to help small businesses. 
We are not finished. We recognize that there are small businesses that 
may need additional help, particularly those who have seen dramatic 
reductions in their revenues and the smaller of the small businesses 
and those underserved communities. We need to pay attention to do 
something about that. But let's get this program working right today. 
Let's give the notices to small businesses and get this passed through 
the Senate today so that small businesses can plan on how to deal with 
the next several months.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am so pleased to be able to join 
Leader Schumer and my colleague and ranking member of the small 
business committee, Senator Cardin. I am grateful for his leadership 
and for the partnership that we had back in March with Senators Rubio 
and Collins. It truly was a bipartisan partnership to try and address 
the challenges that small businesses are facing across this country.
  In New Hampshire small businesses are our lifeblood. They were going

[[Page S2681]]

under because of this pandemic, so the Paycheck Protection Program has 
been a lifesaver. But we know there are things that need to change 
about it in order for it to continue to help those businesses.
  In New Hampshire we have 22,000 small businesses and nonprofits that 
have received over $2.5 billion in forgivable loans under the program.
  But we have also heard from many of those businesses that there are 
improvements and fixes that are necessary, businesses like The Little 
Grille, a New Hampshire restaurant with locations in Littleton and 
Woodsville. They said that PPP has been a lifesaver. But they have only 
2 weeks remaining on their forgivable term, and if the terms of the 
loan are not addressed, the owners of The Little Grille told us that 
they will be back in the same position they were at the start of the 
pandemic, and they may be forced to lay off staff.
  We have heard from the Portsmouth Brewery, which received their PPP 
loan, and they want to rehire their 28 employees but they need more 
flexibility and extensions to the program to resume operations.
  Then, of course, we have heard from Big Dave's Bagels & Deli in North 
Conway. His 32-year-old bakery was predominantly takeout before the 
pandemic, but he was able to keep his employees on and offer hazard pay 
because his approval for the PPP loan came through at the very end of 
April. Now he needs flexibility and loan terms if he is going to keep 
his employees on the payroll.
  I could go on and on with example after example, but the important 
thing is, as Senators Schumer and Cardin have said so eloquently, those 
first loans are about to end, and if we don't do something to help 
those businesses, they are going to be back in the same place that they 
were in in March when the shelter-at-home and the stay-at-home orders 
began in New Hampshire and across this country.
  So we need to do something. This legislation addresses the concerns 
that people have expressed. I think we also need to provide additional 
funding or additional help over the next month until things open back 
up in the economy.
  But, in the short term, the legislation addresses the concerns that 
we have been hearing from small businesses, and I hope we are going to 
see our colleagues pass it by unanimous consent so that there is some 
certainty for those businesses as they try and open back up in this 
very difficult environment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, let me thank my colleagues from 
Maryland and New Hampshire for their eloquence.
  Again, we need to act now. We have waited long enough to make these 
changes. The House passed them 417 to 1. There may be changes people 
want to make, but I would urge that we pass this bill now--we pass this 
bill immediately--because small businesses need the certainty. In the 
next week or two, many will be affected negatively if we don't get this 
legislation passed.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of H.R. 710, which was received from the House; that the 
bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I 
appreciate my colleague's desire to help small businesses. I really 
don't think there is a stronger advocate in support of small business 
in all of Congress. I think I have proved that with my work in tax 
reform, fighting for 95 percent of American businesses that are pass-
through entities.
  I think my colleagues on the floor here today realize that what the 
House passed has one very significant flaw in it--probably a technical 
drafting error but a significant flaw--which says that if you don't 
spend 60 percent of the PPP loan on payroll, you get no forgiveness, 
which was a dramatic difference from what it was when you had 75 
percent.
  I am in favor of all those changes. As Senator Shaheen pointed out, 
there are a lot of problems with PPP that need to be corrected. My only 
objection is, before we authorize this and put an authorization date 
all the way to December 31, we need to make sure those changes are 
made.
  So my only objection is we should not extend this authorization 
without significant reforms that I hope my colleagues would all agree 
with; for example, the fact that many businesses--again, I am not 
denying that PPP provided very swift funding to businesses that truly 
needed it. It was a real lifeline. It worked from that standpoint.
  But, in our case, we all knew that we had to do something massive, we 
had to do something quick, but we also knew it was going to be far from 
perfect. In our haste in crafting this, we made it possible for many 
businesses that didn't need it at all to have access to those funds, 
and we don't have an unlimited checking account.
  When we give money to support businesses that don't need it, we are 
going to have less money to give to those that truly do need it.
  Unfortunately, what we are down to here with this unanimous consent 
request--we have been working in good faith with the sponsors of the 
House bill, with the Republican leadership. I reached out to the 
Democratic leader, saying that we are very close; I think we will 
probably be able to pass the House bill, with assurances, by unanimous 
consent, just not at this moment.
  So, again, I appreciate their thoughts. I am really not disagreeing 
with the fact that we have to do something. I want to do something as 
well. I just want to make sure that if we do put more money into this 
thing, it is not going to be flowing to businesses that don't need it, 
thereby denying those businesses that truly do need it in a more 
targeted fashion.
  So, Madam President, I object
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I respect the good faith and sincerity 
in my colleague from Wisconsin.
  I would say this: If we change this bill and then go to conference 
with the House, we risk too much delay. We should move the bill now. We 
are willing to, certainly, look at the changes that my colleague from 
Wisconsin proposes, and we can do that in a UC tomorrow, next week, 
whenever--but not hold this bill up because, even if the Senator is 
right in his interpretation--which may be right; it may be wrong--it 
doesn't affect 95 percent of the businesses in the next few weeks that 
need help.
  So we ought to pass this bill, help the urgent needs that those 
businesses have, and whatever corrections that my colleague from 
Wisconsin wishes to make, I am sure my colleagues from Maryland and New 
Hampshire and I would look at it. But to hold this bill up now, which 
passed 417 to 1 in the House and which does so many good and needed 
things, unaffected by the provision that he is having trouble with, I 
think would be a sincere mistake.
  So I would ask him to reconsider. We need to pass this bill today.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Democratic leader yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. JOHNSON. What we are working on is not a change to this 
legislation. The way we are working this we will still be able to pass 
this piece of legislation unamended, unchanged, with a letter of intent 
from the chairs and the ranking members of the Small Business 
Committees of both the House and the Senate--together with a commitment 
from the majority leader--and we can pass this as-is.
  We don't have to delay it. We are just this close. I am objecting at 
this time. Give us a little bit more time to work out that method, and 
then we will be able to pass this measure without amendment--no 
changes--pass this and then work in good faith together to make those 
changes I think we all agree need to be changed in the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Will my colleague from Wisconsin yield for a question?
  Mr. JOHNSON. Sure.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Do I understand that you think you will have some 
resolution of this by this afternoon, so you expect at that point to 
come back in with another UC request to pass this bill?

[[Page S2682]]

  

  Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. With cooperation from the chairmen and the ranking 
members of both committees, I think we will be able to get this thing 
done.
  Again, our request is really very simple. I am not the only one. We 
don't want to see this program automatically reauthorized until the end 
of December. Now, there is some dispute as to whether the language 
actually does that. It sounds like the intent was not to do that; it 
was just to allow people to spend money through the end of December, 
which we have no problem with.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. That is my understanding of the bill; it doesn't allow 
you to apply for the loan through December.
  Mr. JOHNSON. So, again, CRS actually interprets it as a full 
authorization, so we just need to show what that true intent is, put 
that letter into the Congressional Record so that we are certain that 
we are not reauthorizing this or authorizing it through December 31; 
that the authorization does end June 30 so that, if we do want to put 
more funds into a program like PPP, that new program will have the type 
of directed reforms that I think we really could gain agreement on.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I thank my colleague. I would simply 
say that it seems to me he has it a little backward.
  We should pass this bill and then work on the changes--not hold this 
bill up. Who knows what can happen? Maybe it will happen today; maybe 
it will not. We have the moment to do it now. We waited 2\1/2\ days. We 
could have done the UC Monday. We waited until Wednesday afternoon. We 
are leaving here tomorrow at about 1.
  The House is not in session now. It would be very, very wise and 
helpful to small business--and I have talked to many of them all across 
the country--to pass this bill now, and then we will work in good faith 
on the small change that my colleague wished to have.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield.
  Mr. JOHNSON. The way we are working this out, there would be no 
change required, just a letter for the Congressional Record stating 
what I believe the intent was, just to allow people to spend to the end 
of December. We are just working out the details of that language, and 
then we will be able to allow this to pass by unanimous consent.
  By the way, I have gotten other Members who are objecting to this to 
agree to this as well.
  So just give us a little bit more time; agree to that language. 
Hopefully, the ranking member would agree with that letter for the 
Congressional Record. Pass this bill, unchanged. Then, in the future--
because this PPP will expire June 30, but the need does not.
  If you read my article in the Wall Street Journal, I have a number 
of, I think, innovative ideas for what we can do to help restore 
capital for businesses that are going to need it to reopen our economy, 
and I would love to work very closely.
  I obviously have experience in businesses and small businesses and 
would like to work with the chairman and ranking member of the Small 
Business Committee
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. If the Senator would yield, he has mentioned several 
different issues. I appreciate the fact that we are trying to get this 
done today and that he is indicating we have a path forward to get this 
completed this afternoon and the House bill to the President, which is 
our objective, so that small business owners understand--24 weeks 
before their loans expire and understand the additional flexibility on 
how they can spend the money because they are making those decisions, 
literally, today.
  The Senator mentioned several different issues that he is concerned 
about, but it appears that the one area in which he is seeking 
consensus here deals with the authority to issue a loan under the PPP 
program through June of this year, which is what the law is, and I 
don't believe it is changed by the House bill. Is that the issue for 
which you are seeking to get consensus from the ranking member and 
chairman?
  Mr. JOHNSON. I believe so. Again, there is a dispute as to what the 
language actually says. Again, I have no problem with the full $660 
billion that has already been appropriated to be spent whenever. But I 
don't want to reauthorize the program past June 30 without the types of 
reforms that we can talk about. Then we will pass it through regular 
order.
  What I am suggesting here is to just wait until we have this letter 
of intent for the Record. We are just asking the chairman or ranking 
member of the Small Business Committees of both houses to agree to and 
sign, and then we will pass this bill as-is, unchanged, to give those 
small businesses the certainty we want to provide them.
  Mr. CARDIN. I am just trying to figure out what I am supposed to be 
signing as ranking member of the committee. If I understand--because 
the Senator had mentioned problems with the 60 percent----
  Mr. JOHNSON. We will deal with those in the future.
  Mr. CARDIN. I just want to make sure we have----
  Mr. JOHNSON. I have no demands other than one--again, we are so 
close. We are first working it out on our side, and then we will 
consult you, and maybe we will pass it yet tonight or early tomorrow 
morning. That is my goal as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, if my friend from Wisconsin is willing 
to delay the other changes he wants and try to work those out, it would 
make eminent sense to delay this one, as well, and try to work that out 
and pass this bill. You never know what happens.
  We should pass it today, not wait for tomorrow. We should pass it 
now, not wait a few hours. Lord knows what can happen. Businesses are 
crying out.
  I think our moving here will move the process forward. It wouldn't 
have moved as quickly as if we didn't move the bill, but it is still a 
better bet to help small businesses, even with the concern my colleague 
has, to pass this bill now.
  I would make one final plea: Let's pass it now. If not, we should 
pass it today.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I am happy to come back or let you come back and ask for 
unanimous consent if we get this hammered out, and I will not object. 
But, at this point, I am going to object until we get this hammered 
out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise today as the United States of 
America, again, faces the enormous challenge and responsibility of 
striving to live up to the preamble of the Constitution of the United 
States.
  The preamble provides: ``We the People of the United States, in Order 
to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic 
Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general 
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our 
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United 
States of America.''
  I note that our Founders, who were far from perfect when it came to 
racial issues, thought that justice was more important than domestic 
tranquility. They listed justice first.
  Today, America is grieving over the brutal and unnecessary death of 
George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25. Both State and Federal law 
enforcement officers are moving quickly to bring the police officers in 
this case to justice and hold them accountable for their actions, as 
Mr. Floyd's cries of ``I can't breathe'' went unanswered as the life 
drained out of him.
  Video taken by several witnesses show that George Floyd--who was 
Black and was unarmed--was handcuffed and pinned to the ground by a 
police officer who held his knee against Mr. Floyd's neck as he pleaded 
for his life. Mr. Floyd was on the ground, repeatedly telling the 
officer that he could not breathe. And despite the fact that bystanders 
are all heard on video begging the officer to relent, he did not remove 
his knee from Mr. Floyd's neck until after an ambulance arrived.
  Eventually Mr. Floyd lost consciousness. He was pronounced dead after 
being transported to a local hospital.
  As leaders, regardless of party, we cannot stay silent about George

[[Page S2683]]

Floyd's death. Black lives matter. George Floyd was a father, a son, 
and a brother. His life mattered. He did not need to die. He and his 
family deserve justice. How many other Black men and women have died at 
the hands of law enforcement or vigilante civilians due to the color of 
their skin but have not been caught on video? Those victims deserve 
justice too.
  We must act, working together, to fundamentally reform the ways 
police across this Nation interact with the communities they serve.
  On Monday night, President Trump once again failed to lead this 
Nation in a time of crisis, and he has forfeited his moral authority as 
President. Spraying tear gas at peaceful protesters to clear a path for 
a photo op is opposite of American values and basic human rights. It 
violates civil and human rights under any circumstances.
  President Trump fans the flames of racism and seeks to divide 
Americans for political purposes, just as he did in Charlottesville and 
far too many places since. He seems willfully blind to the reason 
people are protesting in the first place--to end systematic racism in 
the repeated and tragic targeting of Blacks by law enforcement.
  Congress, finally, must act to pass a comprehensive plan to reform 
police community relations, improve training and hiring of police 
officers, and hold police accountable for misconduct and use of 
excessive force. We must rebuild trust between the police and the 
communities they serve.
  For those who are asking ``Why did it take so long?'' the answer is 
``We have been trying.'' It should not have taken so long, but year 
after year too many of my colleagues have put partisanship before 
justice and equality.
  As both the House and Senate prepare to hold hearings on police 
reform and racial profiling issues, I want to bring to my colleagues' 
attention two pieces of legislation that I have filed: The End Racial 
and Religious Profiling Act and the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity 
Act. If enacted, these two bills could make an enormous difference and 
constitute a giant step forward in reforming police departments in 
America and rebuilding trust between police officers and the 
communities they are sworn to protect and serve.
  The End Racial and Religious Profiling Act is designed to enforce the 
constitutional right to equal protection under the law by eliminating 
racial profiling at all levels of law enforcement by changing the 
policies and procedures underlying the practice.
  First, the bill provides a prohibition on racial profiling, 
enforceable by declaratory or injunctive relief. It creates a standard 
definition of racial profiling, which now includes religion, gender, 
and other protected categories for Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement, enforcing criminal, civil, and immigration laws.
  Can law enforcement still provide a detailed description of a suspect 
that includes race? The answer is yes. But the bill prohibits blanket 
targeting solely based on race or one of the other protected 
categories.
  This bill also mandates training on racial profiling issues as part 
of Federal law enforcement training, the collection of data on all 
routine and spontaneous investigatory activities, and the creation of 
procedures for receiving, investigating, and responding meaningfully to 
complaints alleging racial profiling by law enforcement.
  Systematic racism will not disappear overnight. We must engage all 
law enforcement in aggressive training and then have data to show where 
there is progress and where challenges remain. Our bill authorizes the 
Department of Justice grants for the development and implementation of 
best policing practices.
  The second bill is the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act that I 
have filed. The Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act takes a 
comprehensive approach at addressing the issue of police accountability 
and building trust between police departments and their communities.
  This legislation provides incentives for local police organizations 
to voluntarily adopt performance-based standards to ensure that 
instances of misconduct will be minimized through appropriate 
management, training, and oversight protocols. The bill provides that 
if such incidents do occur, they will be properly investigated.
  The bill provides police officers--the vast majority of whom perform 
their job professionally, putting their lives on the line daily, 
protecting their communities--with the tools necessary to improve 
community relations and enhance their professional growth and 
education.
  It authorizes $25 million for additional expenses related to the 
enforcement of civil rights statutes, including compliance with consent 
decrees or judgments regarding police misconduct brought by the 
Department of Justice.
  In Baltimore City, for example, the Baltimore Police Department 
voluntarily entered into a consent decree in 2017 with the U.S. 
Department of Justice to overhaul the police department. An earlier 
Department of Justice report had found a widespread pattern and 
practice of illegal and unconstitutional conduct by the Baltimore 
Police Department through targeting African-American residents for 
disproportionate and disparate treatment.
  The legislation I have authored also authorizes appropriations for 
additional expenses related to conflict resolution, including programs 
managed by the Department of Justice's Community Relations Services 
within the Civil Rights Division.
  I am pleased that, to date, the protests in Baltimore have been 
largely peaceful, especially compared to 2015 after the death of 
Freddie Gray in Baltimore Police Department custody.
  I do hope my fellow Americans look to Baltimore in 2020 as an example 
for how to peacefully protest and petition the government for redress 
of grievances, as Baltimore has willingly agreed to work with the U.S. 
Department of Justice to overhaul its entire police force so that 
policing its citizens is both fair and effective.
  As many of my colleagues have said before, ``Civil Rights is still 
the unfinished business of America.'' Prejudice, discrimination, and 
outright racism continues to limit the lives of the large number of our 
people. We must continue the struggle today in order to make urgent 
progress.
  As I close, I am reminded of my dear friend, the late Representative 
Elijah Cummings, who died last year. He was a fellow Baltimorean and 
fellow graduate of the University of Maryland Law School. He gave the 
eulogy for Freddie Gray in 2015, who died after being arrested and 
taken into police department custody.
  During the church service, he closed with a quote from the Book of 
Amos:

       I want justice, oceans of it. I want fairness, rivers of 
     it. That's what I want. That's all I want.

  Elijah also asked a pointed question of those of us at the funeral 
that day, as well as to the news cameras that were broadcasting the 
event nationally and around the world. Elijah asked: ``Did anyone 
recognize Freddie when he was alive . . . did anyone see him?''
  Elijah asked whether society had done all that it could have done 
when Gray was ``struggling to simply be all God meant for him to be?''
  Today, I ask my fellow Americans to ask that question when it comes 
to the lives of not only George Floyd but Tony McDade, Sean Reed, 
Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery. I say here today to Black Americans: 
I see you. I hear you. You are men and women. You have families. You 
have the same rights as every other individual in this country.
  In a 2019 interview with ``60 Minutes,'' Steve Kroft noted as 
follows:

       Cummings is not a patient man. It's a lesson he learned 
     from his late grandmother, who imparted her mindset shortly 
     before she died. White people, she told him, had been telling 
     African Americans to wait--and he shouldn't.
       She says, ``Your daddy, he been waiting and waiting and 
     waiting for a better day,'' Cummings recalled. She said, 
     ``He's going to wait, and he's going to die.'' She said, 
     ``Don't you wait.''

  Then, in his late sixties, Elijah Cummings said that when he looks 
into the future, he also reflects on his life. ``I realized that with 
African American people, where we've been blocked from being all that 
God meant for us to be, I don't have time to be patient.''
  Yes, Elijah often said of America that ``we are better than this.'' 
Let's prove Elijah right. I urge the Senate not to be patient any 
longer and wait for the next death of an African American in police 
custody before taking action. Let us hold our hearings and then 
expeditiously take up and pass legislation, including the two bills I 
have explained on the floor today, as the next

[[Page S2684]]

steps in establishing justice in our still imperfect Union.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to complete my remarks before the vote occurs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered