[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 117 (Thursday, June 25, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3290-S3303]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, before I get to the motion I am going to 
make, I am going to take just a few minutes to discuss the importance 
of why the Senate must pass the Coronavirus Relief Flexibility for 
Students and Institutions Act, which is S. 3947.
  This has to do with an action that we took as bipartisan colleagues--
a most important action--in March, passing the CARES Act. The CARES Act 
included $13.9 billion for higher education emergency relief for 
institutions to directly support students facing urgent needs related 
to this pandemic and also to support the institutions as they cope with 
the effects of COVID-19.
  From this amount, about $12.5 billion was provided to all 
institutions of higher ed, and they had to use half their dollars to 
award emergency aid to students and half the funds to cover the 
institutional expenses and needs.
  Congress was very careful in crafting this bipartisan provision to 
provide flexibility so that the institutions could make their own 
decisions about how to use and reward those funds--both for students 
and how to use them for institutions. Unfortunately, the Department of 
Education is not following congressional intent and is including 
additional restrictions and conditions that Congress did not include 
that are making these funds more difficult to access by students and by 
the institutions.
  On the institution side, colleges had to quickly transition their 
programs online, many doing so on a widespread scale for the first 
time, without the technology capacity and staff training to conduct 
those classes.
  Colleges have also had to quickly send students living on campus 
home, bring students home who were studying abroad, clean and sanitize 
their facilities, and provide refunds to students for room and board 
charges. They have had to meet greater financial needs and basic need 
challenges from their students, including housing, food, and childcare 
costs.
  This has resulted in higher costs for colleges at the same time as 
COVID-19 has led to a sharp reduction in normal revenue streams: 
fundraising, housing, dining, event space, athletic, bookstore, 
conferences, and much more--including State funding that has been hurt. 
These revenue losses are likely to continue as students drop out and 
tuition revenue decreases in the fall.
  This would come as schools implement costly safety measures for 
reopening, like testing and PPE distribution. Many institutions have 
already cut pay and benefits, laid off full-time staff and student 
employees, and slashed to reorganize academic and athletic programs. 
This is all in addition to the potential cuts colleges will likely see 
from State budgets.
  I got a letter from the president of one of my community colleges, 
Dr. John Downey, president of Blue Ridge Community College in fall.
  This would come as schools implement costly safety measures for 
reopening, like testing and PPE distribution. Many institutions have 
already cut pay and benefits, laid off full-time staff and student 
employees, and slashed to reorganize academic and athletic programs. 
This is all in addition to the potential cuts colleges will likely see 
from State budgets.
  I got a letter from the president of one of my community 
colleg Weyers Cave. Here is what he said: ``We anticipate devastating 
lost revenue and state budget reductions, and we have no way, with the 
possible exception of the CARES Act institutional funds, to offset 
those losses. The current CARES Act restrictions mean that community 
college will likely only be able to offset $100,000-$300,000 of 
[additional PPE expenses while we] open up. . . . Without the ability 
to offset revenue losses looming for FY21, we are concerned that we 
will be forced to close vital programs and layoff hard-working 
personnel.''

  Moody's Investors Service has changed their outlook for higher ed to 
negative, indicating that 5 to 10 percent of institutions--particularly 
regional public schools and small private colleges--could face 
significantly intensified financial challenges.
  In Virginia, one such institution, Sweet Briar College, a small, 
rural, private college, says the impact is likely to be $10 million. 
VCU, a large, public university, said it is likely to be $50 million in 
the next fiscal year.
  This is why we acted together as Congress to provide CARES Act 
funding that could be used for revenue losses experienced by colleges. 
We didn't specifically exclude using these dollars for revenue losses, 
as we did in the State and local government aid; we allowed such a use, 
as we did with the PPP program and the aid to hospitals. But the 
Department of Education is using a very narrow interpretation of the 
law and refusing to allow colleges to use money for revenue losses.
  On to the student side of the equation, 50 percent of the money was 
to be used for student aid. This is even more concerning. The 
unauthorized guidance that the DOE has issued outlines that the 
financial aid for students can only be provided to students who qualify 
for aid under title IV of the Higher Education Act, which would exclude 
any student who hadn't filled out a FAFSA, who has a minor drug 
conviction, or who is not meeting academic progress requirements. 
Again, these were not conditions that Congress put on the aid to 
students. Nowhere in the CARES Act are these restrictions mentioned.
  The financial aid director at the University of Virginia wrote my 
office as follows:

       When the CARES Act was signed into law, we, along with many 
     others in the financial aid community, believed that the 
     funding source would be available to provide assistance to 
     our students using school discretion. Schools have long 
     operated in this manner. Because of COVID-19, the parents of 
     many students who suddenly lost their jobs or have reduced 
     employment realized that their income had changed 
     dramatically and wished to appeal.

  In other words, students who never had to fill out a FAFSA or who 
never did one because their parents were employed are now facing 
parents who are not employed.

       It is not right for the DOE to put new requirements on the 
     students and bar them from receiving aid.

  Some students have written. Here is a third-year undergraduate 
student from Fairfax: I was studying abroad this past semester but had 
to return home in March. My study-abroad program is unsure whether they 
are going to be able to refund any of the semester's worth that I paid 
for fees, including housing, meals, tuition. Due to the travel ban, I 
had to book a ticket home on 1-day's notice, initially costing me 
$1,800, but I was able to receive a partial refund of $900. My father 
has been the primary source of income for my family, but he loses his 
job this month. Since we don't know when he will be reemployed, this 
has resulted in significant financial challenge to my family.
  There are similar stories from other students--graduate students in 
engineering in Henrico, undergraduates from Halifax.
  Again, Congress intended these dollars to be used flexibly. The DOE 
is getting in our way.
  What the act would do that I am about to call up--it would ensure 
that the Secretary in the Department of Education just follow 
congressional intent by providing institutions of higher ed and 
students with the increased flexibility they need during this time. The 
bill would allow colleges to use their revenue from the CARES Act for 
lost revenue--the higher ed funds for lost revenue. The bill would 
ensure that emergency financial aid to students is made available to 
all students

[[Page S3291]]

in need, letting the institutions decide how to make that 
determination. Finally, it would better target funds designated for 
colleges hardest hit by COVID-19.
  Colleges and universities are major economic drivers. Placing 
arbitrary restrictions on them is a challenge at any time--especially 
now. We should be working together to ensure that the institutions and 
our students get the help that Congress wanted them to get.
  Again, the bill I have before you doesn't create a new program, and 
it doesn't cost a penny. All it does is ask the Secretary of Education 
to simply follow what Congress intended
  Madam President, with that, I would ask unanimous consent that the 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee be discharged from 
further consideration of S. 3947, a bill to amend the provisions 
relating to the higher education emergency relief fund to clarify the 
flexibility provided to institutions and for students under the fund, 
and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
  I further 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?
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, reserving the right to object, 
I appreciate my colleague's focus on higher education. We both had the 
same opportunity as Governors to do what we could to drive the cost of 
tuition down and help make sure all of our students had the opportunity 
to get jobs.
  My goal as Governor of Florida and now as a U.S. Senator is to keep 
education affordable and obtainable and make sure students are able to 
get a job when they graduate.
  I know we all are focused on giving our students every opportunity to 
succeed. My colleague has not shown how giving a blank-check bailout to 
higher education institutions helps our students--students who are 
burdened with mountains of debt from these same 4-year colleges and 
universities.
  The solution is not to give more money to support the bloated 
bureaucracies of our public and private colleges and universities. And 
these very institutions continue to raise tuition year after year on 
our students and their families. That is why I am instead offering my 
STEM Act, which is a real solution to make higher education more 
affordable and ensure schools are preparing students for jobs. We made 
similar reforms in Florida, and our students are getting a world-class 
education at a price they and their families can afford. My goal is to 
bring this success to our Nation.
  The STEM Act does three things:
  One, it eliminates all Federal funding for institutions that raise 
tuition. There is no reason universities should be raising costs on 
students even one bit. Businesses have to get more productive every 
year; so should our colleges and our universities.
  Second, my STEM Act holds colleges and universities accountable for a 
portion of student loans.
  By forcing universities to take more responsibility, they will have 
more of an incentive to actually prepare students for careers, instead 
of encouraging mountains of debt and degrees that don't lead to jobs 
after graduation.
  Third, the STEM Act creates a metric system for accountability to 
make sure all higher education institutions are doing their most 
important job--preparing our students for the opportunity to get a 
great job, build a career, and become more self-sufficient.
  Our higher education system doesn't serve the student, and we need to 
change that. Our students deserve more than just throwing money at our 
institutions with no checks and balances.
  It is time we get something done to fix the problems in our higher 
education system and realign incentives. I look forward to working with 
my colleagues to do this.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kaine modify 
his request and, instead, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 2559, the 
Student Training and Education Metrics Act, and the Senate proceed to 
its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read 
a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Virginia so modify his 
request?
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I appreciate my Senate colleague's desire 
to increase accountability and transparency of student outcomes. As 
Governor, I was doing the same thing with Virginia institutions. I view 
his request as a little bit of a non sequitur. It is not really 
connected to mine.
  He mentioned that we shouldn't be throwing more money at colleges. 
Let me make plain again that my request does not cost a penny. It is 
not about an additional penny for colleges. It is about implementing 
the CARES Act, which was passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote by 
this body on March 26.
  Senator Scott's bill does not deal with something we have already 
done. It does not deal with the COVID emergency. It does deal very 
directly with something that we are in the process of doing. The HELP 
Committee right now is considering the reauthorization of the Higher 
Education Act. Senator Scott's proposal, dealing with transparency and 
accountability, fits squarely within the discussion that the HELP 
Committee is currently having about reauthorization of HEA, and it is 
an appropriate and important topic for the committee to grapple with as 
we work on the HEA reauthorization. But in that sense, I am a little 
puzzled because there is a venue for his proposal right now in the HEA 
reauthorization discussion as we go forward and look at what more 
accountability we would ask of our colleges.
  I don't think we should jump Senator Scott's bill ahead of that 
reauthorization and impose new restrictions on universities in the 
middle of this pandemic, as we are trying to help them get through 
COVID. For that and other reasons, while I would certainly pledge to 
work with the Senator on this matter in the committee on which we both 
sit, during HEA reauthorization, I do not agree to modify the request 
that I made regarding S. 3947.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Reserving the right to object, I look forward 
to working with my colleague from Virginia to do what we both tried to 
do as Governors and we were both focused on. It is hard to keep tuition 
down and to make sure kids get jobs at the end. It is a very difficult 
job.
  I don't think what we are doing today with Senator Kaine's proposal 
is going to help our students get the jobs they need and help keep our 
tuition down. I don't think we ought to be giving a blank check to our 
institutions that raise tuition on our students. We all know the 
mountains of debt--over $1.7 trillion--which is ridiculous. I think my 
STEM Act is a solution to help make our higher education system 
affordable and ensure kids have a future. But, unfortunately, we are 
not able to do that today. I respectfully object. I look forward to 
working with Senator Kaine to try to do everything we can to get this 
tuition down and help our kids get jobs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, for a bit of good news, last year we 
finally provided certainty to American exporters and their workers by 
enacting a 7-year reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank's charter. 
This is a big victory after years of obstruction by a handful of our 
Republican colleagues.
  We know what happened here in this Congress. In 2015, during the last 
debate on reauthorizing the Bank, a small group of opponents, supported 
by far-right special interests, tried to kill the Bank altogether. When 
that didn't work, they decided to block all nominees to Ex-Im's Board, 
denying it the quorum needed to approve transactions greater than $10 
million. Their obstruction cost us more than 130,000 jobs a year by 
2018.
  Unfortunately, a few Republicans continue to undermine American 
manufacturers and our workers by preventing Ex-Im from having a full 
Board

[[Page S3292]]

of Directors. It is time for the Senate to consider the long delayed 
nominations of Republican Paul Shmotolokha and Democrat Claudia Slacik.
  Today's economic damage from COVID builds, and Senator McConnell, the 
leader of this body, refuses to let us do our jobs and pass additional 
help for families and communities of small businesses. Ex-Im will be 
called on--it is more important than ever--to help ensure the survival 
of our manufacturing base and thousands of small businesses and their 
workers.
  Ex-Im, during the last crisis, added 515 new small business clients 
in 2009 alone. The stakes are even higher today. There are more than 
100 export credit agencies. I believe President Reed, head of the Ex-Im 
Bank, who is doing a very good job, said 118 in committee this week. 
There are more than 100 export credit agencies and credit programs 
around the world that support foreign manufacturers. But our greatest 
challenge is China. China's export finance activity is larger than all 
of the export credit provided by the G-7 countries combined, and we can 
expect China to continue using export credit as a weapon to end 
manufacturing business in critical sectors. I asked President Reed 
about that in committee, and she is certain that China's threat will 
continue and perhaps grow.
  The President and many of my Republican colleagues want to blame 
China for darn near everything, including the virus that has taken the 
lives of 120,000 of our brothers and sisters and parents and sons and 
daughters. That is 30 percent of the world's deaths. We are 5 percent 
of the world's population, and we are 30 percent of the world's deaths. 
That is not because we don't have good doctors and medical workers and 
all of that. It is because of Presidential leadership.
  China has not been a model of responsibility, but President Trump 
needs to stop blaming China for his own failures to do more at home to 
prevent the spread of the coronavirus.
  For my Republican colleagues who profess concern about China, I wish 
they had shown the same concern with standing up to China during our 4-
year fight to support American manufacturers. If you say you are 
concerned about China, then, you should support filling Ex-Im's Board 
so our manufacturers can better compete with China.
  A core role of Ex-Im Board members is educating the business 
community about how to use the Bank's export financing to expand sales 
abroad and create more jobs in the United States. Many small businesses 
are just trying to survive right now. Some of them don't know that Ex-
Im is a tool that can help. We need a full Board that can be proactive 
about offering support.
  Mr. Shmotolokha--as I said, a Republican nominee--has been nominated 
as the First Vice President and was reported out of the Banking 
Committee more than a year ago, and Ms. Slacik was first nominated 
almost 4 years ago. Neither is controversial. Mr. Shmotolokha has 
decades of experience in the telecom industry. He deeply understands 
how China competes. Ms. Slacik previously served at Ex-Im and has more 
than 30 years of commercial banking experience.
  Ex-Im has an effective management team under President and Chair 
Kimberly Reed, but the Bank needs to operate at full capacity during 
this unprecedented crisis, not missing two of its five members with 
critical expertise.
  Don't just take it from me. This shouldn't be partisan. It is not an 
ideological question. The Banking Committee chair--my counterpart, the 
chair of the committee--Mike Crapo, supports filling the Ex-Im Board. 
The U.S. Chamber supports it. The National Association of Manufacturers 
supports confirming these two particular nominees.
  On Tuesday, Ex-Im's President and Chair, Kimberly Reed, nominated by 
President Trump, testified to the Banking Committee that she wants a 
full Board because Ex-Im is working to make small business transactions 
30 percent of its portfolio, as Congress directed. She said: ``That 
takes a lot of boots on the ground and a lot of work.''
  I agree with Ex-Im President Reed completely and Senator Crapo 
completely. We need a full Board. We need boots on the ground to help 
small businesses at Ex-Im. We also have a qualified inspector general 
nominee, Peter Coniglio, who is waiting for confirmation. These 
nominations are long overdue. I will ask the Senate to consider them 
immediately. If we want Ex-Im to support more small businesses and help 
America manufacturers compete against China, there is no excuse for 
more obstruction
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar No. 
128, No. 336, and No. 557; that the nominations be confirmed, en bloc; 
that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be 
in order on the nominations; that any related statements be printed in 
the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 
action; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I think 
it is worth reminding my colleagues exactly what the Ex-Im Bank is all 
about. What this is, then, is a Bank by which taxpayers are required to 
subsidize big corporations. That is what Ex-Im Bank is.
  The precise way that it works, though, is to provide the subsidy 
directly to foreign entities--often state-owned entities, often Chinese 
state-owned entities--when they buy an American product, when they buy 
an American export. The Ex-Im Bank is in the business of forcing 
taxpayers to subsidize foreign, often state-owned, entities buying 
American products. I object to that activity and so do many of my 
Republican colleagues.
  This is a controversial entity. It is a controversial idea that we 
would expand the population on the Board because doing so diminishes 
the likelihood that they might be at a point, at some point in the 
future, where they would not have a quorum.
  My own view is that what we ought to be doing is having a mutual 
negotiation with our trading partners to phase out all of these export 
subsidy banks all around the world. And, unfortunately, neither this 
administration nor the previous administration has had any interest in 
pursuing that.
  In the meantime, I have asked for improvements in the operations of 
the Export-Import Bank--operations such as transparency and controlling 
taxpayer risk and the extent to which it crowds out private financing 
and other areas. I will say that I appreciate Ex-Im Bank President 
Reed's efforts in these areas, but there is a long way to go. It 
doesn't solve the fundamental problem, which is the mission of the 
Bank.
  The defenders of Ex-Im will sometimes argue that Ex-Im Bank--the 
subsidy that taxpayers are required to provide to foreign purchasers--
is essential for our exports, that we need it and jobs depend on it. It 
is interesting because we have a controlled experiment that addresses 
that question directly. From 2015 through the early part of 2019, the 
Ex-Im Bank didn't have a quorum, so it could not legally engage in 
large-scale transactions. It couldn't do anything, and they didn't.
  You have a period of about 4 years, and during that time, the volume 
of financing--the volume of transactions that Ex-Im Bank was doing--
dropped by about 80 percent. That is huge. The Ex-Im Bank for several 
years was a shadow of its former self.
  What happened to American exports during the time when the Ex-Im Bank 
was basically out of business? I will tell you what happened. American 
exports grew and hit an all-time record high in 2018. That is what 
happened. The fact is, Americans make great products, and we can sell 
them overseas without having to subsidize the buyer. Buyers and sellers 
arranged private financing. There are lots of banks and institutions 
that are in the business of providing this financing. Taxpayers 
shouldn't have to subsidize it. The proof is in the pudding. When Ex-Im 
Bank was effectively closed, American exports grew and hit an alltime 
record high.

  It is also a fact that when the Ex-Im Bank gets into the business of 
subsidizing some, it inevitably does damage to others. There was a case 
wherein the Ex-Im subsidies created a competitive advantage for Air 
India that cost

[[Page S3293]]

jobs at Delta Air Lines because the two competed directly on routes. 
The Air India route was subsidized by virtue of the Ex-Im subsidy, of 
its acquisition of planes, and Delta didn't get that subsidy. According 
to the CEO, who testified before the House, just that one deal cost 
1,000 jobs at Delta.
  I have a substantive objection here. I have an objection to this 
institution's mission, and growing its Board is part of advancing that 
mission. I have to say that this is in contrast to the obstruction that 
we are seeing from our Democratic colleagues with respect to nominees 
about whom they often have no objection at all.
  The fact is, there has been a mission on the part of many of my 
Democratic colleagues to just block President Trump's nominees just 
because they are President Trump's. In fact, President Trump's nominees 
have had to undergo the delaying tactic of the cloture vote--a 
procedural vote that is designed to just chew up time and prevent us 
from functioning.
  In the first year of his Presidency, there were over 300. That is 
more than the cumulative number of these delaying tactics for the first 
terms of his four predecessors, and it continues. In fact, earlier this 
year alone, we had our Democratic colleagues force this delaying 
tactic--this cloture vote--on judges, and then they voted for them, 
some of whom were confirmed unanimously. District Judge Silvia Carreno-
Coll was forced to go through the delaying tactic and was then 
confirmed 96 to 0. There was a cloture vote--a delaying vote--on Robert 
Anthony Molloy to be a U.S. district judge, who was then confirmed 97 
to 0.
  There were still 68 reported nominees on the Executive Calendar as of 
yesterday. There are 13 of these nominations that are over 12 months 
old, and many of them are nominees about whom there is no objection.
  With this case, there is an objection. It is a substantive objection 
to providing a cushion to a quorum of a bank with whose mission I 
disagree. If people want to go through the process of bringing this to 
the floor and filing cloture, it can be processed, but this isn't the 
way to do it.
  So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I am disappointed but not surprised that 
we are not able to confirm the Ex-Im nominees today. There is great 
bipartisan support for this agency. We did a long reauthorization that 
was close to unanimous in its support. It is a place in which we have 
worked together to create American jobs.
  I understand Senator Toomey's discussion about corporate interests. I 
am a bit surprised by that when this body passes trade agreement after 
trade agreement that supports corporate interests and that costs 
workers their jobs and when this body passed a huge tax cut for the 
rich 3 years ago that reduced the corporate tax rate and reduced it 
even further for companies that shut down production in Shelby or Lima 
or Akron, OH, and companies moved overseas to get their tax breaks and 
access to low-wage workers. I am just disappointed that we couldn't 
actually move forward.
  It is the law of the land to have an Ex-Im Bank. There are two out of 
five slots that are empty. The President and Chairman of the Ex-Im 
Bank, Kimberly Reed, a Trump appointee, said very strongly that she 
needs more help, more boots on the ground, because she could create 
more jobs that way.
  Lastly, I was a bit surprised to hear complaints about the Democrats' 
slow-walking of nominees. I mean, instead of actually doing the 
people's business here--getting help for unemployed workers and helping 
people stay in their homes as courts open up and more evictions are on 
the horizon and as layoffs in local governments and State governments 
around the country loom--this Senate spends most of its time on 
confirming judges.
  My wife and I watched almost the entire rally in Tulsa. It was the 
first big Trump campaign rally--not that big--or the first purportedly 
big Trump campaign rally. We watched numbers of my colleagues with no 
masks in an arena in which public health officials said: Please, don't 
do that.
  I heard the President brag about all of the judges he has gotten 
confirmed. So when I hear any of my colleagues complain that the 
Democrats have been obstructionists--have tried to stop Trump 
nominees--just remember what Senator McConnell did with a legitimately 
chosen Supreme Court nominee and, equally as important, what this body 
has done in confirming judge after judge, many of them young and many 
of them far right and out of the political mainstream. The Republicans 
dutifully vote for them because Senator McConnell tells them to. We 
know how that works around here. We have so much more work to do than 
that, but this Senate doesn't seem to be interested.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee


                       Communications Decency Act

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, in the early days of the internet, 
when we were all just beginning to get online and experience what it 
was like to have at our fingertips an entree to the entire world--all 
of the information you could want--everything at that point really felt 
like a novelty. It had a newness about it. Technology was new, and 
consumers were able to take their time carving out a comfort zone for 
what they wanted to do online. They were signing up for Facebook, and 
they were trying to figure out which of their retail merchants they 
wanted to visit online, how they wanted to shop online, what 
transactions they wanted to begin to put into that search engine, and 
then conduct those transactions online. At the same time, technology 
firms were carving out their place in the market.
  I don't have to tell you that this dynamic has really changed from 
those early days and those first experiences with the virtual space. We 
walk around with computers in our pockets. That level of convenience 
and connectivity is great, but it has thrown off the balance of power 
between what is now called Big Tech and consumers. Over the past few 
years, these companies have treated the American people to a series of 
scandals that have opened the floodgates to mainstream concerns over 
issues like data privacy, child exploitation, a national security risk, 
and blatant, anti-competitive business practices.
  Just this week, I sent a letter to the Attorney General about 
Google's latest attacks on conservative media outlets. As a reminder to 
everyone, Google threatened to remove the Federalist and ZeroHedge from 
the Google Ads platform after determining that these outlets' comments 
sections--did you get that? It was their comments sections, which are 
the areas you go to participate in public debate--contained content 
that violated company policy. Well, how about that?
  A representative from Google ran to the press and insisted that both 
outlets had published dangerous, hateful content. It really makes you 
wonder: What was their real reason for this threat? What was the real 
reason for the Google representative's breathless accusations to the 
press?
  In my letter, I encouraged Attorney General Barr to meet with 
representatives from both the Federalist and ZeroHedge so that they 
could explain firsthand what a permanent ban from the Google Ads 
platform could lead to in terms of loss of traffic and revenue. Of 
course, the answer to that inquiry is that a ban would be catastrophic 
for any outlet, and here is the reason: Guess who dominates online 
advertising. Google. It is called a monopoly. It is called ``they 
control those ad platforms.''
  This Friday, State attorneys general are meeting with Justice 
Department officials to discuss this, and if I were Google, I would be 
a little bit nervous about that. I think it is fair to say that many of 
these attorneys general have just about had it with some of these 
online practices.
  This particular scandal is interesting because it implicates both 
antitrust concerns and the section 230 protections that are laid out in 
the Communications Decency Act. Lately, we have heard quite a bit about 
section 230, and we have already discussed at length whether it should 
be left alone, reformed, or scrapped entirely.
  When section 230 was implemented in the early days of the internet, 
the vision was that it would shield emerging and new technology firms 
from lawsuits. It would give them the ability to

[[Page S3294]]

kind of stand up, if you will. It would, in good faith, allow platforms 
to remove content that they would find to be obscene, violent, 
harassing, or otherwise objectionable even if the material would be 
otherwise constitutionally protected speech. At the time, when all of 
these businesses were in their infancies, when they were new starts, 
this worked pretty well. Startups were allowed to innovate without 
having to worry about lawsuits sending their companies into bankruptcy 
or threatening their ability to raise venture capital, but, as I said 
earlier, times have changed.
  Now, as is the case with most policies involving Big Tech, heavy-
handed government intervention will not fix this problem. Still, many 
of my colleagues here in the Senate believe that using strict 
legislation and policing speech is the only path to reform. I will tell 
you, as someone who has been censored by a social media platform, I 
fully appreciate and understand their points of view. Not only is it 
frustrating to become a victim of that bias, but it is also so 
disheartening to watch our country devolve into a place where people 
would rather be shielded from debate than learn from the people with 
whom they disagree.
  You know, there used to be a time when you would engage your friends 
who had different opinions than you. You would engage them and 
participate in some point and counterpoint and have a friendly 
discussion about your take on the issues. Yet, when it comes to reining 
in Big Tech, the innovators have to be allowed to innovate. They need 
some guardrails, but they do not need straightjackets.

  This is the same approach I took when drafting the BROWSER Act, which 
was the data privacy legislation I introduced in the Senate last year 
but had worked on this since I had been in the House, and it is the 
approach that we are taking with the bipartisan Tech Task Force. 
Policies like these take a lot more time and a lot more one-on-one 
communication to draft and to work through to a resolution, but they 
are much better for the industry and innovation than something that is 
purely punitive.
  I am working closely with the White House and the Justice Department 
on a series of changes to section 230 that will allow us to fix the 
rules we have without having to start from scratch.
  First, we can incentivize online platforms to address truly illicit 
content by implementing three carve-outs that exempt specific 
categories of speech from immunity. First, facilitating or soliciting 
third-party activity that violates Federal criminal law--we call this 
one the ``bad Samaritan carve-out''; second, content involving child 
exploitation and abuse, terrorism, and cyber stalking; and third and 
last, we will revoke that immunity if a platform is caught failing to 
act when it has actual knowledge of or was provided with a court 
judgment regarding unlawful content.
  We also need to clarify once and for all that section 230 immunity 
does not apply to actions brought by the Federal Government. But what 
about those startups, those up-and-coming tech companies that are 
looking for the next great idea? How will reform treat them differently 
from the Facebooks and the Googles of the world?
  What we can do is limit liability based on minimum platform user 
thresholds. We would limit those section 230 protections to platforms 
with fewer than 50 million American users. Just for reference, Google 
has 259 million American users, Facebook has 221 million, and Twitter 
has 64 million American users. Under this standard, a user alleging 
harm would be able to move forward with a lawsuit against a platform 
only if that platform's user threshold were above 50 million U.S. users 
and a court has reasonable grounds to believe that the platform 
contributed to the offending post or refused to act on it once 
notified.
  These are all simple changes that will rebalance the relationship 
between online platforms and their customers, and we shouldn't delay in 
our implementing them because the internet is more than just a place 
where we post our status updates or photos of what we had for dinner; 
the digital revolution fundamentally changed the way we live our lives, 
consume the news, and interact with corporations, media outlets, and 
our local governments.
  We can't afford to let these platforms leverage their own biases to 
arbitrarily decide who is allowed to speak or what information we are 
allowed to consume, but we also can't afford to implement heavy-handed 
policies that will inevitably collapse the entire industry.
  I look forward to the Senate's continuing its work on this on both 
the Commerce and Judiciary Committees.
  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.
  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            The JUSTICE Act

  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Madam President, it is a shame the Senate has been 
prevented the opportunity to discuss meaningful legislation to 
strengthen and improve our law enforcement system.
  The Senate had an opportunity to implement public safety measures the 
American people believe are needed and the American people want. Most 
importantly, the Senate was blocked from working toward helping bind 
the Nation together.
  Sadly, this was due to partisan politics by our Democratic 
colleagues. It is disappointing that, when given the chance to back up 
a lot of big talk about reform and change, our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle simply walked away. I was under the impression we 
were all in agreement that the matters addressed in this legislation 
were, at the very least, worth debating. By refusing to even consider a 
debate, Senate Democrats leave the American people with irresponsible 
demands to defund the police and destruction of public property.
  My friend and colleague, the junior Senator from South Carolina, 
worked tirelessly to produce very good legislation. He and the 
leadership offered to work with our Democratic colleagues and assure 
them there would be an open amendment process.
  Had we had a chance to proceed, I was prepared to file an amendment 
that would have gotten the top Federal and State law enforcement 
officials together from rural and urban areas and developed a best 
practices curriculum for training incoming law enforcement officers. 
The amendment would have provided the resources to train the trainers.
  This simply illustrated that Members on both sides of the aisle 
wanted an opportunity to offer meaningful changes to the bill, but only 
one side of the aisle thought that opportunity was worthwhile. I am 
ready to debate on that and any other amendment should we do the right 
thing and have an open, purposeful conversation on a very critical 
issue.
  The tragic death of George Floyd in Minneapolis last month exposed an 
erosion of public confidence in the rule of law and law enforcement 
practices. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of law 
enforcement officers, who are very good friends of mine--many of them 
across the country--do their jobs fairly and justly. However, the bad 
actions of a few are enough to cause us as elected leaders to consider 
responsible changes to improve police practices and rebuild public 
confidence in those we trust with ensuring our public safety.
  I encourage my colleagues to reconsider and engage in this debate. It 
would be a real tragedy not to use this national moment in our history 
to improve law enforcement through more accountability, transparency, 
and better training.
  Let's stop looking for ways to divide the American public. Let's 
bring people together and work together toward meaningful reform that 
improves law enforcement, public safety, and the confidence Americans 
deserve in the rule of law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from Colorado


                   70th Anniversary of the Korean War

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Republic 
of Korea on this June 25, the 70th anniversary of the start of the 
Korean war.
  The Republic of Korea is a longtime ally and partner that resides in 
one of the most prosperous and one of the

[[Page S3295]]

most dangerous parts of the world. When most of us hear about Korea, we 
instinctively focus on the threat emanating from the bizarre failed 
state in the north, and we often forget about the incredible successes 
and stories of success in the south that was made possible largely by 
the United States-South Korea Alliance.
  When I visited the Korean War Memorial in Seoul in July of 2017, I 
read the names of Americans and Coloradans that died answering the call 
to defend a country they never knew and a people they never met. I 
think that, today, we owe it to our fallen soldiers to recognize what 
the world has gained from their sacrifice.
  On June 25, 1950, Kim Il-sung's army crossed the 38th parallel to 
invade South Korea. In response, the United States mobilized the 
international community under the U.N. flag and sent hundreds of 
thousands of U.S. troops to defend Korea. To this day, thousands of 
U.S. soldiers remain unaccounted for. Over 1 million Korean civilians 
perished. Most survivors have never seen or spoken with their families 
across the border.
  The U.S. decision to intervene in that war transformed the future of 
Asia. South Korea has blossomed from a war-torn state to an economic 
powerhouse, a thriving democracy, and, in recent months, a global 
leader in response to a public health crisis.
  South Korea boasts the 12th largest economy in the world and has 
become a leader in critical future technologies such as 
telecommunications, electronics, and semiconductors. They managed to do 
this despite having a population of only 50 million people, few natural 
resources, and effectively operating as an island restricted to 
maritime trade.
  South Korea's hard-fought transition from authoritarian governments 
to vibrant democracy took time, it took perseverance, and it took grit, 
but they did it. It is now a democracy with a highly educated and 
active civil society that embraces the rule of law and human rights and 
stands in stark contrast to its authoritarian neighbors in North Korea 
and China.
  As our South Korean ally has grown more prosperous and more capable, 
it has also taken on an outsized global responsibility. Since the 
Korean war, South Korea has fought alongside the United States in all 
four of our major conflicts.
  Once a recipient of foreign aid, Seoul is now a worldwide donor of 
aid. It has become a critical pillar in upholding the postwar order, 
playing a valuable role in the global nonproliferation regime, global 
emissions reduction, peacekeeping, cybersecurity, counterterrorism, and 
postconflict stabilization.
  South Korea has also become a key stakeholder in various 
international organizations, including the United Nations, World Trade 
Organization, G-20, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperative forum, just to 
name a few.
  The alliance has proven to not only be crucial for U.S. economic and 
national security interests but for our health as well. This was most 
evident as South Korea led a pivotal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 
I worked closely with our South Korean allies and the Colorado Governor 
Jared Polis to obtain hundreds of thousands of COVID-19 testing kits 
for Colorado, which will continue to be vital as we get through this 
ongoing pandemic.
  Weeks ago, President Trump invited President Moon of South Korea to 
the upcoming G7 meeting. I fully endorse this decision, and at the 
current juncture, I believe it is time to explore new avenues to 
broaden cooperation with South Korea on the global stage, including in 
global health, the environment, energy security, and emerging 
technologies.
  South Korea is situated in one of most precarious neighborhoods in 
the world. Koreans have historically explained their geography of being 
a ``shrimp among whales.'' Indeed, northeast Asia holds a number of 
nuclear-capable states, economic mammoths, and the largest standing 
armies in the world.
  In our alliance, we vow to defend one another from attack, but it 
often goes unstated that South Korea bears the frontline burden of this 
defense. While North Korea has only recently tested an ICBM capable of 
reaching the continental United States, Seoul has been under the threat 
of artillery, short-range missiles, an armed invasion for decades. In 
the shadow of this threat, South Korea has invested considerably in 
defense, over 2.5 percent of its GDP. It also funded over 90 percent of 
the costs of Camp Humphreys, what is now the largest overseas U.S. 
military base in the world. These are just a few of the ways in which 
South Korea remains a model alliance partner.
  Against the backdrop of rising tensions in recent weeks, we should 
swiftly conclude negotiations on the Special Measures burden-sharing 
agreement, which would provide strategic stability on the Korean 
Peninsula and strengthen the U.S.-South Korea alliance.
  The United States and South Korea maintain a tightly-integrated 
combined forces command that is unique to the world. This demonstrates 
the immense trust and combined capability between our two militaries. 
This unique structure makes credible our ability and commitment to meet 
those threats at a moment's notice. It also allows us to stand shoulder 
to shoulder as allies and say ``kachi kapshida'' or ``we go together.''
  But the alliance faces greater threats today than at any time in the 
past. Chinese coercion in the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea, as 
well as militarization of the South China Sea, have all increased in 
recent years. As China has grown, it has also become more aggressive. 
We must come together with regional partners to resist this coercive 
behavior.
  Only with a concerted voice can we preserve global norms and 
international law, and South Korea plays a growing role in upholding 
this regional order. Our North Korea policy has for decades failed to 
achieve denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. However, the U.S.-
South Korea alliance has succeeded in deterring Pyongyang, retaining 
regional stability, and maintaining conditions for the growth and 
prosperity of every country in the region, except for Pyongyang.
  We stand ready to welcome the people of North Korea into the 
international community, but this requires Pyongyang to commit to 
economic reform, to treat its people with dignity, and to refrain from 
menacing others with weapons of mass destruction.
  I believe U.S. policy toward North Korea should be straightforward. 
Until we achieve the denuclearization of North Korea, the United States 
will deploy every economic, diplomatic, and, if necessary, military 
tool at our disposal to deter Pyongyang and to protect our allies.
  Pyongyang recently exploded the inter-Korean liaison office in 
Kaesong and began rolling back its commitments under the April 2018 
Panmunjom Declaration. Since February 2019, since that summit in Hanoi, 
Pyongyang has rebuffed working-level negotiations with the U.S.
  In March of this year, Kim launched a record number of missiles in a 
single month and continues to unveil new missile systems that impose 
novel threats to our allies South Korea and Japan.
  Kim Jong Un is showing that he simply doesn't want diplomatic and 
economic engagement on the terms offered by the United States and the 
international community but wants only to deepen his country's self-
isolation and build his weapons programs.
  The United States must respond with our allies. We must consider 
restoring military exercises with our partners in Seoul and Tokyo, 
enhance missile defense, and remain in close consultation to reassure 
our allies of our commitment to defend them from any aggression or 
coercion. Kim Jong Un must not underestimate the resolve of the United 
States to defend our allies.
  The peaceful resolution of the North Korean problem also requires the 
international community to finally join together in fully implementing 
United Nations sanctions. In this effort, we require greater 
cooperation from Beijing. China accounts for 90 percent of North 
Korea's trade, including virtually all of North Korea's exports. The 
most recent U.N. Panel of Experts report to the North Korean Sanctions 
Committee provided clear evidence of illicit ship-to-ship transfers 
between North Korean and Chinese ships just off the Chinese coast. 
These blatant violations of sanctions must end now.

[[Page S3296]]

  In 2016, I led the North Korean Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act, 
which passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 0. The Trump administration 
has the opportunity to use these authorities to build maximum leverage 
not only with Pyongyang but also with Beijing. If China will not act to 
ensure its entities comply with international law, then perhaps 
pressure from the U.S. Treasury and the Department of Justice will make 
it a priority for Beijing.
  I was initially encouraged by the administration's decision in June 
of 2017 to sanction the Chinese Bank of Dandong. This conveyed an 
unprecedented statement that we were serious about the maximum pressure 
campaign, and it got results. However, even as we saw Chinese sanctions 
enforcement wane after summits in 2018, the pace of designations and 
indictments has slowed tremendously.
  The administration, with congressional support, should now make clear 
to any entity doing business with North Korea that they will not be 
able to do business with the United States or have access to the U.S. 
financial system.
  Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice charged 28 North Koreans 
and 5 Chinese citizens with using a web of more than 250 shell 
companies to launder over $2.5 billion in assets through the 
international banking system. This is a good sign, but individual 
indictments have not effectively deterred further sanctions violations. 
We need to pressure Chinese banks that serve as the illicit conduit 
between North Korea and the outside world.
  As for any prospect of engagement, we must continue to make it clear 
to Beijing and Pyongyang that the United States will not negotiate with 
Pyongyang at the expense of the security of our allies. Maintaining 
robust U.S. alliances in the Asia-Pacific, in fact, should be our No. 1 
priority. That is why last Congress I authored and passed the Asia 
Reassurance Initiative Act. ARIA outlines a long-term strategic 
framework to double down on engagement in the Indo-Pacific, to protect 
U.S. interests, and to uphold the post-war order that has benefited the 
United States, its allies, and much of the world over the past 70 
years.
  Maintaining peace and prosperity on the Korean Peninsula and 
throughout the Indo-Pacific is an effort that can no longer be and 
never could be accomplished without our allies, without our friends. 
That is what makes America so strong.
  Today I hope my colleagues in the Chamber will aid me in passing this 
resolution commemorating those Koreans and Americans who fell in 
defense of freedom on the Korean Peninsula 70 years ago. There is no 
greater way to honor their sacrifice than to look back on all that our 
two peoples have accomplished over the past 70 years and to continue to 
nurture the steadfast alliance between the United States and South 
Korea. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
scheduled for 1:30 p.m. begin now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows


                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 483, S. 4049, a bill 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.
         Mitch McConnell, Marsha Blackburn, Joni Ernst, John 
           Boozman, Steve Daines, Cory Gardner, Pat Roberts, Mike 
           Rounds, Mike Crapo, Roger F. Wicker, Cindy Hyde-Smith, 
           Lamar Alexander, Shelley Moore Capito, Rob Portman, Roy 
           Blunt, John Barrasso, John Thune.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 4049, a bill 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, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), 
and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 90, nays 7, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 127 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--7

     Harris
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Sanders
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Burr
     Enzi
     Moran
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 90, the nays are 7.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                      Washington DC Admission Act

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, our country faces real challenges today. 
For example, anti-American mobs are roaming the streets in many cities, 
tearing down statues of our greatest statesmen, men like Abraham 
Lincoln, U.S. Grant, and George Washington, after whom this Capital 
City is named.
  But the Democrats aren't doing anything about that problem. Oh, no, 
on the contrary, the mob is, in many ways, the youth movement of the 
Democratic Party. So they are perfectly content to look the other way--
or even cheer it on. I mean, have you heard Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, 
or Nancy Pelosi denounce the mob violence we see on our streets? Me 
neither.
  Instead, the Democrats have found another pressing issue. The House 
is voting tomorrow on a bill to make Washington, DC, a State. If that 
sounds insane, you are not alone. More than two-thirds of the American 
people oppose DC statehood, according to a Gallup poll last summer.
  By some estimates, DC statehood is less popular even than defunding 
the police. So why are the Democrats pushing for it? The answer is 
simple--power. The Democrats want to make Washington a State because 
they want two new Democratic Senators in perpetuity.
  The Democrats are angry at the American people for refusing to give 
them total control of the government, for going on a decade now. So 
they want to give the swamp as many Senators as your State has. They 
want to make Washington a State to rig the rules of our democracy and 
try to give the Democratic Party permanent power.
  In doing so, the Democrats are committing an act of historical 
vandalism as grotesque as those committed by Jacobin mobs roaming our 
streets. In their rush to make Washington a State, they disregard the 
clear warnings of our Founding Fathers.

[[Page S3297]]

  If the Democrats succeed in forcing through DC statehood, they will 
do so only as a narrow faction that scorns the history of our country 
and seizes power against the will of the people who want Washington to 
remain what it has been for more than 200 years--a Federal city, our 
Nation's Capital.
  The District of Columbia is unusual, though not unique, among 
capitals of the world, in that it didn't grow naturally over the 
centuries but was purpose-built as the Capital of our Nation. The 
Founders created Washington as a Federal city so that the operations of 
government would be safe and free from domination by the States around 
it.
  James Madison wrote in Federalist 43 that ``the indispensable 
necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its 
own evidence with it.''
  It is so obvious as to be self-evident. Without complete control over 
its territory, Madison wrote, the government ``might be insulted and 
its proceedings interrupted with impunity.''
  Hostile magistrates or an angry mob might interfere with the people's 
elected representatives or even usurp the government.
  Now, this was no abstract concern for the Founders. Just 5 years 
before Madison wrote those words, several hundred mutinous soldiers 
assailed the Congress in Philadelphia, where it met at the time. They 
issued demands to Congress for money and wantonly pointed their muskets 
at Independence Hall.
  Pennsylvania's Governor rejected Congress's pleas for help, saying he 
would wait until the mob committed some actual outrages on persons or 
property before sending in the State militia. Congress ultimately had 
to adjourn and flee to New Jersey while Washington sent in troops to 
put down the mutiny.
  This mutiny was an insult, an interruption of the sort Madison refers 
to in Federalist 43. The Founders made Washington, DC, independent so 
that the Federal Government would never again be at the mercy of a mob 
or a hostile State.
  The wisdom of this decision was on display just days ago when violent 
riots erupted near the White House, setting fire to a historic church 
and committing other acts of vandalism and destruction across the city. 
Those riots were contained thanks to an impressive show of force by 
Federal law enforcement officers under Federal control.
  One can only imagine how much worse the destruction would have been 
if those Federal officers hadn't been there, if most of Washington were 
under the control not of the Federal Government but of a leftwing 
politician like Muriel Bowser, who frequently takes the side of rioters 
against law enforcement.
  Would you trust Mayor Bowser to keep Washington safe if she were 
given the powers of a Governor? Would you trust Marion Berry? More 
importantly, should we risk the safety of our Capital on such a gamble?
  Now, of course, the Democrats will argue that the statehood bill 
doesn't entirely eliminate Federal control of Washington because it 
preserves a small Federal district that encompasses the White House, 
the Capitol, the Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, the National 
Mall, and a few other government buildings. What a humbling demotion 
from the grand Federal city that President Washington and Pierre 
L'Enfant envisioned more than 200 years ago, which they hoped would 
rival Paris in size and ambition.
  By contrast, look at this ridiculous map. Look at it. The Democrats 
propose to turn Washington into little more than a gerrymandered 
government theme park, surrounded on all sides by a new State 
controlled, of course, by the Democrats.
  The Federal Government's safety and independence cannot be assured by 
such a laughable district. Again, look at it. It has 90 sides. A mere 
city block, less than 200 yards, separates the White House from the 
proposed boundaries of a new State, governed at present by a politician 
who hates the President. The Supreme Court and several congressional 
office buildings are right at the edge of the map, separated from the 
new Democratic State by the width of a single city street. In the event 
of emergency, like the Philadelphia mutiny of 1783, those narrow 
boundaries could jeopardize the operations of the Federal Government.
  Consider also what is not included in this ridiculous new map of a 
new Washington, DC. The headquarters of the Department of Homeland 
Security would be outside the Federal Government's control, as would be 
the headquarters of the FBI and the FCC, which governs all 
communications in the country.
  The seat of government would be separated for the first time from its 
military bases--Fort McNair in Southwest Washington, the marine 
barracks in Southeast Washington, and Bolling Air Force Base, across 
the river.
  Washington's roughly 200 foreign embassies would no longer be in the 
Federal district but in the Democrats' new State, giving it unusual 
prominence in foreign affairs--precisely the kind of treatment the 
Founders hoped to avoid by creating a Federal city.
  While the proposed Federal District would have access to a single 
powerplant, undoubtedly it would rely on the Democrats' new State for 
many basic utilities--not just power but water, sewage, and 
telecommunications. It would also rely on the new State, as well as 
Virginia, for access by land.
  The civil servants and officers of the Federal Government would have 
no choice but to reside in a different State on which they would wholly 
depend for access to the Federal zone.
  These may seem like minor or obscure problems, and, at peaceful 
times, maybe they are. But recognize the truth: The government of the 
most powerful Nation in the world wouldn't have control of critical 
infrastructure necessary for its own safety, functioning, and 
independence in a crisis. Maybe that seems like a remote danger, 
although one should think better after the riots earlier this month, to 
say nothing of the Civil War itself, when our seat of government faced 
imminent danger in encirclement by hostile forces. In fact, the danger 
was so severe that President Lincoln wanted Washington to be enlarged, 
not diminished, and to include the area south of the Potomac that was 
retroceded to Virginia in 1846. He said:

       The present insurrection shows, I think, that the extension 
     of this District across the Potomac at the time of 
     establishing the capital here was eminently wise, and 
     consequently that the relinquishment of that portion of it 
     which lies within the state of Virginia was unwise and 
     dangerous.

  How much more unwise and dangerous would it be to shrink the Federal 
District even further to just a few buildings in a 90-sided map? But 
that is exactly what the Democrats propose to do.
  Those are just the practical and prudential problems. DC statehood 
also presents a grave constitutional conundrum. Attorneys General as 
diverse as Bobby Kennedy and Ed Meese understood that the 23rd 
amendment to our Constitution forecloses the Democrats' statehood 
proposals. The 23rd amendment, ratified in 1961, gave Washington 
residents a meaningful vote in Presidential elections. The amendment 
grants three electoral votes to, in its own words, ``the district 
constituting the seat of government of the United States.''
  But of course, the Democrats' new State would also be entitled to its 
own three electoral votes. Yet, if the 23rd amendment isn't repealed, 
the rump Federal district will retain its three electoral votes. The 
practical effect, of course, would be to increase the swamp's electoral 
power in Presidential elections.
  Even the radical Democrats can't ignore this thorny problem. Their 
bill calls for the swift repeal of the 23rd amendment, but they would 
allow Washington to become a State before the amendment is repealed. 
But there is no assurance that the amendment would actually be 
repealed. The Constitution has only been amended on 18 occasions in our 
Nation's history. It is not a walk in the park in the best of times. 
Yet the Democrats want you to think they can pull off an amendment to 
alter the electoral college in the midst of a Presidential election.
  In the meantime, DC statehood, along with the 23rd amendment, will 
lead to absurd consequences. This small Federal district, with three 
electoral votes, would have virtually no residents. In fact, as far as 
I can tell, the only residents in the district are right here, in the 
White House.

[[Page S3298]]

  If the House passes this bill tomorrow and the Senate were to approve 
it for the President's signature, then Donald and Melania Trump need 
only change their voter registration from Florida to Washington to get 
their own--their very own--three electoral votes. I can't help but 
think this isn't what Nancy Pelosi had in mind.
  Even putting aside these practical and constitutional problems with 
DC statehood, though, we return to a basic truth: Washington is a city 
with all the characteristics of a city, not a State. Washington doesn't 
have the size or diversity of interest of even the smallest of the 50 
States.
  Consider Washington's size. At just shy of 70 square miles, DC is 18 
times smaller than the smallest State in the union--Rhode Island. But, 
of course, the Democrats say size doesn't matter. What matters is 
population. Washington has just over 700,000 residents--more than 
Wyoming and Vermont and about as many as Alaska. Doesn't this qualify 
Washington as a State? If it did, we would need a lot more States 
because Washington is just the 20th largest city in the country. If 
Washington deserves to be a State at 700,000 residents, how much more 
does New York City deserve to be its own State at 8 million residents? 
Perhaps Bill de Blasio should trade out his title of mayor for 
Governor, all the better to battle his nemesis Andrew Cuomo on equal 
terms. But let's not give the Democrats any bright ideas.
  What about Jacksonville, FL, at more than 900,000 residents, 
shouldn't we have a State of Jackson to accompany the new State of 
Washington? We all know that will not do. Jacksonville is governed by a 
Republican, and the Democrats have canceled Andrew Jackson.
  Washington also doesn't have the diversity of interest and financial 
independence that Madison explained were necessary for a well-
functioning State. Yes, Wyoming is smaller than Washington by 
population, but it has 3 times as many workers in mining, logging, and 
construction, and 10 times as many workers in manufacturing. In other 
words, Wyoming is a well-rounded, working-class State. A new State of 
Washington would not be.
  What about Alaska? It provides more than 60 percent the Nation's 
seafood, and its vital geography protects the entire Nation with 
missile defense systems and enables us to check Russian and Chinese 
ambitions in the Arctic.
  But what vital industries would the new State of Washington 
represent--lobbying, bureaucracy? Give me a break. By far, the largest 
group of workers in the city ar bureaucrats and other white collar 
professionals. This State would be nothing more than an appendage of 
the Federal Government, not separate from the government, as the State 
ought to be.

  Faced with these insuperable facts, the Democrats will retreat to the 
claim that it is not fair for Washington to pay taxes but not be 
represented in Congress. Washington residents, they say, get a raw 
deal. ``No taxation without representation,'' as their license plates 
proclaim.
  But, of course, this is backward. As our Nation's Capital, the 
District of Columbia is represented by the very fact of its privileged 
position, and it reaps the benefits of that privilege. For every $1 
that District residents pay in taxes, they get $4 back in Federal 
spending. That is more than any of the 50 States.
  Nor is Washington unique in its relationship to Congress. Just like 
other Territories--Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American 
Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands--Washington has a 
nonvoting member of Congress who is empowered to introduce legislation, 
advocate for it on the House floor, and sit on committees. In fact, 
Washington's Delegate introduced the very bill that Democrats plan to 
vote on tomorrow to create this ridiculous Federal district.
  If it is a special indignity for Washington residents not to have a 
voting Member of Congress, is it also an indignity for the 55,000 
American Samoans? Should they get two Senators as well? Once again, 
though, let's not give the Democrats any bright ideas. They already 
want to make Puerto Rico a State.
  But all of my observations about the practical effects and 
constitutional obstacles in the end give too much credit to what the 
Democrats are really up to--a naked power grab. Democrats in Congress 
are advocating DC statehood against the will of the American people--
including the will of democratic voters, a majority of whom oppose DC 
statehood. Democratic politicians are pushing for this radically 
unpopular idea not because it is a sound idea but because they are 
angry that they don't win every election under the current rules, and 
so they want to change the rules.
  If you doubt this whole endeavor is about power, consider that the 
Democrats could just as easily call for retroceding the District of 
Columbia to Maryland. This would give Washington residents the voting 
power in Congress that is supposedly at the heart of this matter--a 
voting Member in the House, probably of its own, and representation in 
the Senate. There is even historical precedent for retrocession, unlike 
turning the Federal District into a State. But retrocession wouldn't 
give the Democrats their real aim--two Democratic Senators in 
perpetuity to rubberstamp the swamp's agenda. So you will not hear them 
talk about that.
  Also consider the Democrats' other big idea as of late. You will see 
that startling them. Earlier this week, the junior Senator from 
Delaware expressed his openness to ending the legislative filibuster in 
the Senate, even though he wrote the letter demanding that we preserve 
the filibuster. Having two more Democratic Senators would be awfully 
handy to that goal. The Democrats also have a scheme to abolish the 
electoral college so that a handful of massive, liberal cities can pick 
the President. They want to pack the Supreme Court so liberal activists 
never lose again at the highest Court in our land.
  These proposals have practical and constitutional problems as glaring 
as DC statehood, but the Democratic Party pushes forward nevertheless 
because their goal is to accumulate as much power as possible and never 
relinquish it.
  This week, the mob comes for Washington--his statue, his history, and 
now his city. We must oppose this destructive campaign in the Senate, 
just as it is opposed by the majority of American people across the 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland


              Remembering the Capital Gazette Journalists

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this Sunday, we will mark a grim 
anniversary. On June 28, 2018, a 38-year-old man who held a longtime 
grudge against the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, MD, for 
reporting about him, made good on his sworn threats. He entered the 
newspaper's office, headed to the newsroom, and deliberately shot and 
killed five employees of this community newspaper.
  The Capital Gazette is the local paper of record in Annapolis. It is 
one of the oldest continuously published newspapers in the United 
States. It traces its roots back to the Maryland Gazette, which began 
publishing in 1727, and the Capital, which was founded in 1884.
  Two years later, the senseless loss of life remains so personal to so 
many people in Annapolis and around the State. You need to understand 
that the Capital Gazette is as much a part of the fabric of Annapolis 
as the State government that it covers better than anyone in the 
business. Today, it still carries out that mission better than anyone 
else, with an added priority of covering the gun violence that 
continues to plague this country and efforts to reduce gun violence and 
increase public safety.
  As I did 2 years ago, I want to take a moment to mourn those we lost 
and to thank the first responders who appeared on the scene literally 
60 seconds after the 9-1-1 call. On this day 2 years ago, Anne Arundel 
County police officers happened to be down the street from the offices 
when the shooting started. Their location and fast response most 
definitely saved lives.
  According to Anne Arundel Police Chief Timothy Altomare, within 2 
minutes, the Anne Arundel County Police Department, the Annapolis 
Police Department, and the Anne Arundel Sheriff's Office rushed into 
the offices and into the newsroom and apprehended the gunman.

[[Page S3299]]

  State and Federal law enforcement personnel from the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms, and 
Explosives and many other agencies quickly arrived to support local 
officials in their efforts to clear the building and meticulously 
investigate the scene.
  I want to thank, again, Chief Altomare and every one of those law 
enforcement officers who did their job and contributed to the emergency 
response. I want to acknowledge, again, the victims.
  Gerald Fischman, 61, was an editor with more than 25 years of service 
with the Capital Gazette, well known at the newspaper and throughout 
the community for his brilliant mind and writing. Most often, it was 
his voice and his insightfulness that came through on the editorial 
pages of the Capital Gazette.
  Rick Hutzell, the Capital Gazette's editor, described Fischman as 
``someone whose life was committed to protecting our community by 
telling hard truths.''
  Rob Hiaasen, 59, was a columnist, editor, teacher, and storyteller 
who brought compassion and humor to his community-focused reporting. 
Rob was a coach and a mentor to many. According to the former Baltimore 
Sun columnist Susan Reimer, he was ``so happy working with young 
journalists. . . . He wanted to create a newsroom where everyone was 
growing.''
  John McNamara, age 56, was a skilled writer and avid sports fan. He 
combined these passions in his 24-year career as a sports reporter at 
the Capital Gazette. Former Capital Gazette sports editor Gerry 
Jackson, when remembering ``Mac,'' said:

       He could write. He could edit. He could design pages. He 
     was just a jack of all trades and a fantastic person.

  Rebecca Smith, age 34, was a newly hired sales assistant known for 
her kindness, compassion, and love for her family. A friend of her 
fiance described ``Becca'' as ``the absolute most beautiful person'' 
with the ``biggest heart'' and called her death ``a great loss to this 
world.''
  Wendi Winters, age 65, was a talented writer, who built her career as 
a public relations professional and journalist, well known for her 
profound reporting on the lives and achievements of people within the 
community. She was a ``proud Navy Mom'' and Navy daughter. Wendi saved 
lives during the attack. She confronted and distracted the gunman, 
throwing whatever she could find around her at him.
  As the newspaper noted:

       Wendi died protecting her friends, but also in defense of 
     her newsroom from a murderous assault. Wendi died protecting 
     freedom of the press.

  My heartfelt condolences and prayers go out to the families of these 
five wonderful people.
  The surviving staff members also deserve our continued prayers and 
praise for their resilience and dedication to their mission as 
journalists. During and after the attack, staff continued to report by 
tweet, sharing information to those outside, taking photos and 
documenting information as they would any other crime scene. Despite 
their grief, shock, anger, and mourning, the surviving staff--with the 
help of their sister publication the Baltimore Sun, Capital Gazette 
alum, and other reporters who wanted to lend a hand to fellow 
journalists--put out a paper the next morning, as they have done every 
day since.
  The staff fittingly left the editorial page blank the day after the 
shooting, but for these few words:

       Today, we are speechless. This page is intentionally left 
     blank to commemorate the victims of Thursday's shootings at 
     our office.

  The staff promised that on Saturday, the page would ``return to its 
steady purpose of offering our readers informed opinion about the world 
around them, that they may be better citizens.'' And they carried that 
out.
  Our Constitution, which establishes the rule of law in this country, 
grants us certain rights and responsibilities. Freedom of the press, 
central to the very First Amendment of the Constitution, has often been 
under attack, figuratively speaking, since our Nation's founding. 
Today, those attacks have become more frequent, and they are not just 
figurative anymore. They are physical. These attacks are spurred on by 
dangerous rhetoric that has created an open season on the media for 
doing its job--asking questions that need to be asked, investigating 
stories that need to be investigated, and bringing needy transparency 
to the halls of power, whether they are in Annapolis, Washington, DC, 
or anywhere in this country.
  In 2018, after the shooting at the Capital Gazette, the United States 
was, for the first time, added to the list of ``the most deadly 
countries for journalists'' in an annual report by the group Reporters 
Without Borders.
  President Trump's rhetoric--calling the media ``a stain on America'' 
and the ``enemy of the American people''--certainly has been harmful. I 
have said this before and I will keep saying it: The President's 
language is dangerous. It has gone beyond the pale, and he needs to 
stop it.
  As Jason Rezaian wrote in the Washington Post after the Capital 
Gazette shooting, Donald Trump ``didn't create the problem of hostility 
to journalists, but he exploits and exacerbates it.''
  He went on to say:

       That's true, too, of the leaders in other countries who 
     routinely call reporters enemies of the state, terrorists and 
     national security threats. And we must be vigilant to 
     standing up to these empty accusations.

  In the United States, physical attacks on media have grown so 
troublesome that the Committee to Protect Journalists, an independent 
nonprofit that promotes freedoms globally, actually started a U.S. 
freedom tracker to show the scope of the problem. So far, in 2020, 
there have been 107 journalists attacked and 36 arrested in the United 
States.
  Instead of attacking the free press, we need to be honoring it. 
Toward that end, I have introduced a bill, S. 1969, to establish the 
fallen journalists memorial here in Washington, DC. I am pleased that 
the Natural Resources Committee ordered the bill to be reported 
favorably by voice vote. The changes the committee made reflected input 
from stakeholders, including the National Park Service, which supports 
the bill.
  The legislation is bipartisan, noncontroversial, and does not impose 
any additional costs on taxpayers. The memorial will serve as a fitting 
tribute to the Capital Gazette staff and to all journalists who have 
died in the line of duty and to our Nation's commitment to the free 
press.
  My hope is that we will all agree that building a new memorial to 
honor the fallen victims is appropriate and should be done and should 
be passed.
  As Walter Cronkite remarked, ``Freedom of the press is not just 
important to democracy, it is democracy.''
  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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            The JUSTICE Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senate was prepared yesterday to 
answer the call of millions of Americans to take action on police 
reform. The senseless and tragic death of Houston native George Floyd 
galvanized people of all races and ethnicities to speak out against the 
injustices that persist in our criminal justice system and to demand 
action. We tried to take that responsibility seriously.
  Senator Tim Scott, our colleague from South Carolina, led the effort 
to draft a bill that would improve policing practices around the 
country. That bill, the JUSTICE Act, addressed choke holds and no-knock 
warrants--two practices which have, for good reason, been brought into 
question by recent events. This legislation would have ensured that the 
best trained officers on our police forces would be using body 
cameras--reporting critical data--and being held accountable for 
crossing redlines.
  We thought our colleagues across the aisle would have taken this 
matter seriously as well. They drafted their own version of a reform 
bill. While there were differences between the two proposals, there was 
a lot of overlap. In fact, there was more these two bills had in common 
than was different. Both bills, for example, focused on training, 
transparency, and accountability.

[[Page S3300]]

  I had hoped that would have meant that we would have been in a good 
place when it came to trying to reconcile the remaining differences. 
After all, the Democratic leader had been urging the majority leader to 
put a police reform bill on the floor by July 4, and that is exactly 
what we did. Leader McConnell made clear that this would be an open 
debate and that there would be amendments and an opportunity for our 
Democratic colleagues to work with us in order to make the bill better. 
Ultimately, if they had decided to get on the bill, as the Presiding 
Officer knows, there would have been 60-vote thresholds on the back end 
that would have given them leverage to have made sure that the debate 
would have been fulsome and fair. But that simply wasn't enough for our 
friends across the aisle.

  When it came time to take a purely procedural vote to begin debate, 
they blocked it. They refused to engage in any meaningful or productive 
way.
  So after promising the American people that they were going to act to 
reform America's police departments, they were given the opportunity, 
but they broke their promise.
  As Senator Scott said yesterday, it wasn't what was being offered but 
who offered it. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle find 
themselves too politically conflicted to work on a bipartisan basis to 
enact meaningful reforms, so they have chosen to take the low road of 
obstruction. They have shown they can't be bothered to pass a bill that 
would help families like the Floyds who have lost their loved ones in a 
senseless and completely preventable way. They proved yesterday that 
this was a purely political calculation--very sad.
  Both Democrats and Republicans have said repeatedly over the last few 
weeks that the status quo was not sustainable and that it is time to 
change. As I said, both parties drafted bills, but it is pretty clear 
there was only one party interested in making a law.
  Unless you can get enough votes to pass a Republican-led Senate, a 
Democratic-led House, and get the signature of a President, those 
reforms won't change the behavior of a single officer. If those 
solutions only live on the page of a bill or within the borders of a 
press release, they are not going to accomplish anything.
  So I understand that our Democratic colleagues weren't happy starting 
with the JUSTICE Act, but the temper tantrum we witnessed yesterday 
isn't moving us one step closer to achieving the results they claim 
they want, which is change.
  The majority leader has indicated that this body will have another 
opportunity to vote on whether to begin debating this legislation. 
Again, this wasn't about the final bill; this was about beginning the 
process of determining what that bill would look like. So I hope our 
colleagues across the aisle will reconsider. I hope they will listen to 
the millions of Americans who want to see us working together. They 
want to see action, not cynical political gestures.


                                S. 4049

  Mr. President, turning to another matter, I am glad the Senate has 
now moved to consider another critical piece of legislation--the 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  The NDAA, as it is called, represents one of the most basic duties of 
the Federal Government, and that is to provide for the common defense. 
The National Defense Authorization Act is how we ensure that critical 
Department of Defense programs are continued, that American 
servicemembers are paid, and that our national defense is modernized to 
keep pace with the rapidly evolving threat landscape.
  All of us have understood the importance of passing the NDAA each 
year, which is why, for the last 59 years, we have done it without 
delay.
  I hope Members of this body are committed to continuing that 
tradition because as our Nation battles on so many different fronts, we 
cannot afford to let military readiness lapse.
  One of my top priorities is to make sure our men and women in uniform 
have the support they need and the training they need on and off the 
battlefield.
  The defense authorization bill builds on the progress we have made to 
implement the national defense strategy and ensure that our military is 
prepared to counter the threats we face today and those that will 
inevitably come tomorrow. It goes a long way to maintain our 
technological advantage, to modernize our weapons, to build resilience, 
and to strengthen our alliances.
  America's 2.1 million servicemembers have made a commitment that few 
are willing to make and joined the ranks of America's heroes who have 
defended our country throughout our history. Roughly 225,000 of them 
call Texas home, in places like Fort Hood, Fort Bliss, Lackland Air 
Force Base, Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, and Ellington Field, just 
to name a few. Those Texans--those Americans--carry out missions that 
are crucial to our national security, protecting us from increasingly 
complex threats.
  We have a responsibility to provide our troops with the training, 
equipment, and resources they need so they can complete their critical 
missions and hopefully return home safely. After all, these men and 
women are much more than dedicated and talented servicemembers; they 
are our sons and daughters, our parents, our spouses, and our family 
members.
  While we are providing them the resources they need to succeed, we 
need to support those military families. This legislation includes a 3-
percent pay raise for our troops, additional support for the family 
members, such as military spouse employment opportunities, and 
childcare.
  Earlier this month, the Senate Armed Services Committee completed its 
markup and voted overwhelmingly to send this bill to the Senate floor.
  As we begin consideration of the defense authorization bill, I want 
to thank all of the men and women who serve in our U.S. military and 
ensure them that we will do everything we can to support them and 
ensure they are empowered and mission-ready.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, if there was ever a moment in American 
history to fundamentally alter our national priorities, now is the 
time.
  Whether it is fighting against systemic racism and police brutality, 
transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel, ending a cruel 
and dysfunctional healthcare system, or addressing the grotesque levels 
of income and wealth inequality in our country, now is the time for 
change--real change.
  When we talk about real change, it is incredible to me the degree to 
which Congress continues to ignore our bloated $740 billion defense 
budget, which has gone up by over $100 billion since Trump has been in 
office.
  Year after year, Democrats and Republicans--who disagree on almost 
everything--come together with minimal debate to support an exploding 
Pentagon budget, which is now higher than the next 11 countries 
combined--now higher than the next 11 countries combined--and which 
represents more than half of our discretionary spending.
  Incredibly, after adjusting for inflation, we are now spending more 
on the military than we did during the height of the Cold War, when we 
faced a major adversary in the Soviet Union, or during the wars in 
Vietnam and Korea.
  This extraordinary level of military spending comes at a time when 
the Department of Defense is the only agency of our Federal Government 
that has not been able to pass an independent audit, when defense 
contractors are making enormous profits, while paying their CEOs 
exorbitant compensation packages, and when the so-called War on Terror 
will end up costing us some $6 trillion.
  I believe this is a moment in history where it would be a very good 
idea for all of my colleagues and the American people to remember what 
former Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in 1953. As we 
all recall, Eisenhower was a four-star general who led the Allied 
Forces to victory in Europe during World War II. He knew something 
about war and defense spending. Eisenhower said, and I quote--and this 
is a profound statement we should never forget--Eisenhower said:

       Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every 
     rocket signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who 
     hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not 
     clothed.
       This world in arms is not spending money alone, it is 
     spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its 
     scientists, the hopes of its children.


[[Page S3301]]


  Dwight D. Eisenhower.
  What Eisenhower said was profoundly true 67 years ago, and it is 
profoundly true today.
  If the horrific pandemic we are now experiencing has taught us 
anything, it is that national security is not just building bombs, 
missiles, jet fighters, tanks, submarines, nuclear warheads, and other 
weapons of mass destruction; national security also means doing 
everything we can to improve the lives of our people, many of whom have 
been abandoned by our government decade after decade.
  In order to begin the process of transforming our national 
priorities, I have filed an amendment to the National Defense 
Authorization Act with Senator Markey of Massachusetts to reduce the 
military budget by 10 percent and to use the $74 billion in savings to 
invest in distressed communities all across our country--communities 
that have been ravaged by extreme poverty, mass incarceration, 
deindustriali-zation, and decades of neglect.
  At a time when more Americans have died from the coronavirus than 
were killed fighting in World War I; when over 30 million Americans 
have lost their jobs in recent months--30 million; when tens of 
millions of Americans are in danger of being evicted from their 
apartments or their homes because they no longer have adequate income; 
when education in America--from childcare to graduate school--is in 
desperate need of reform; when half a million Americans are homeless 
tonight; and when close to 100 million of our people are either 
uninsured or underinsured, now is the time to invest in our people--in 
jobs, education, housing, healthcare here at home--not more military 
spending for an already bloated military budget. Now is the time to get 
our priorities right.
  Under this amendment, distressed communities in every State in our 
country would be able to use this $74 billion in funding to create jobs 
by building affordable housing desperately needed in our country, by 
investing in schools when school budgets all over America are in 
desperate shape, investing in childcare facilities, community health 
centers, public hospitals, libraries, sustainable energy projects, and 
clean drinking water facilities.
  These communities will also receive Federal funding to hire more 
public school teachers, provide nutritious meals to our children, and 
offer free tuition at public colleges, universities, or trade schools.
  Mr. President, at this pivotal moment in American history, we have to 
rethink our Nation's priorities, and we have to make a fundamental 
decision about who we are as a people.
  Do we really want to spend billions more on endless wars in the 
Middle East, or do we want to provide good-paying jobs to millions of 
unemployed Americans at home as we rebuild our communities? Do we want 
to spend more money on nuclear weapons, or do we want to invest in 
childcare and healthcare for the American people who need it the most?
  When we take a close look at the Defense Department budget--I am 
sorry to say that I don't think we are doing that here in the Senate--
it is interesting to note that Congress has appropriated so much money 
for the Defense Department that the Pentagon literally does not know 
what to do with it. Children go hungry in America, people sleep out on 
the streets, young people can't afford to go to college, but the 
Defense Department literally does not know what to do with all of the 
money Congress throws at it.
  According to the Government Accountability Office--the GAO--between 
2013 and 2018, the Pentagon returned more than $80 billion in funding 
back to the Treasury. They couldn't spend the money that they had.
  In my view, the time is long overdue for us to take a hard look not 
only at the size of the Pentagon budget but at the enormous amount of 
waste, cost overruns, fraud, and at the financial mismanagement that 
has plagued the Department of Defense for decades.
  Let's be clear. About half of the Pentagon's budget goes directly 
into the hands of private contractors, not our troops. And I think I 
share the view with every Member of the Senate that we must protect our 
troops. I don't want troops and their families on food stamps. I don't 
want to see our military living in inadequate housing or lacking 
childcare for their kids. We must make sure that our men and women in 
the Armed Forces have as good a quality of life as we can provide. But 
let's again not forget that about half of the Pentagon's budget goes 
directly into the hands of private contractors, not the troops.
  Over the past two decades, virtually every major defense contractor 
in the United States has paid millions of dollars in fines and 
settlements for misconduct and fraud, all while making huge profits on 
those government contracts.
  Since 1995, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and United Technology--some of 
the major defense contractors in America--have paid over $3 billion in 
fines or related settlements for fraud or misconduct--over $3 billion 
in fines or related settlements for fraud or misconduct. Yet those 
three companies received around $1 trillion in defense contracts over 
the past two decades alone.
  I find it interesting that the very same defense contractors that 
have been found guilty or reached settlements for fraud are also paying 
their CEOs excessive compensation packages. Last year, the CEOs of 
Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman both made over $20 million in 
total compensation, while 90 percent of the company's revenue came from 
defense contracts. In other words, these companies--and it is important 
to note, and we don't talk about this often--for all intents and 
purposes, these companies are governmental agencies. They are receiving 
over 90 percent of their revenue from the Federal Government. Yes, they 
are private corporations, but they are essentially subsidiaries of the 
Federal Government. Yet, despite receiving over 90 percent of their 
funding from the taxpayers of this country, they are paying their CEOs 
over 100 times more than the Secretary of Defense makes. And the 
Secretary of Defense does just fine, but the CEOs, on government 
revenue of the major defense companies, earn 100 times more than the 
Secretary of Defense. It is not, therefore, very surprising to learn 
that we have a revolving door where our generals and admirals and other 
officials in the military leave government service and then end up on 
the boards of directors of these major defense companies.

  Moreover, as the GAO has told us, there are massive, massive cost 
overruns in the Defense Department's acquisition budget that the U.S. 
Congress must address. According to the GAO, the Pentagon's $1.8 
trillion acquisition portfolio currently suffers from more than $628 
billion in cost overruns, with much of the costs taking place after 
production.
  In other words, they tell the government--they tell the DOD that they 
will produce a weapons system for X dollars. It doesn't mean much 
because the total amount ends up being Y after they get the contract.
  The GAO tells us also that ``many DOD programs fall short of costs, 
schedule and performance expectations, meaning the DOD pays more than 
anticipated, can buy less than expected, and in some cases delivers 
less capability to the warfighter.''
  The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan 
concluded in 2011, and $31 to $60 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan has 
been lost to fraud and waste--$31 to $60 billion. Separately, in 2015, 
the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction reported 
that the Pentagon could not account for $45 billion in funding for 
reconstruction projects. It just got lost. A few bucks here, a few 
bucks there? No, $45 billion of taxpayer money was lost and cannot be 
accounted for. More recently, an audit conducted by Ernst & Young for 
the Defense Logistics Agency found that the DOD could not properly 
account for some $800 million in construction projects. That is what 
happens when you have a huge agency that is truly unaccountable.
  I believe in a strong military, but we cannot keep giving more money 
to the Pentagon than it needs when millions of children in our country 
are food insecure, when 140 million Americans cannot afford the basic 
necessities of life without going into debt, throwing billions after 
billions into the Pentagon and a few blocks away from here, in the 
Nation's Capital, people are sleeping out in the streets, children

[[Page S3302]]

can't find a decent education, and young people can't afford to go to 
college.
  In 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., warned us that ``a nation that 
continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than 
on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.''
  Let me repeat that.
  Dr. King said that ``a nation that continues year after year to spend 
more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is 
approaching spiritual death.''
  The time is long overdue for the U.S. Senate to listen to what Dr. 
King said. At a time when, in the richest country in the history of the 
world, half of our people are struggling paycheck-to-paycheck; when 
over 40 million Americans are living in poverty; and when over 500,000 
Americans are homeless, to quote Dr. King, we are approaching spiritual 
death.
  At a time when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of 
almost every major country on Earth and when millions of Americans are 
in danger of going hungry, we are approaching spiritual death.
  At a time when over 60,000 Americans die unnecessarily every year 
because they can't afford to go to a doctor when they need to go to a 
doctor and when one out of five Americans cannot afford the 
prescription drugs their doctors prescribe, yes, we are approaching 
spiritual death.
  Now, at this moment of unprecedented national crisis, it is time to 
rethink what we value as a society and to fundamentally transform our 
national priorities. The status quo is no longer good enough. Now, at 
this moment of national crises, a growing pandemic and economic 
meltdown, the demand to end systemic racism and police brutality, and 
an unstable President, it is time for us to truly focus on what we 
value as a society and to fundamentally transform our national 
priorities. Cutting the military budget by 10 percent and investing 
that money in human needs is a modest way to begin that process.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                       Tribute to Daniel Welborn

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is Thursday, and it is that time of 
the week that I like to come down to the Senate floor and talk about 
somebody who is doing something great in my State, someone I get to 
brag about, a special Alaskan, somebody we refer to as our Alaskan of 
the Week.
  Sometimes this person has made big headlines back home, maybe even 
across the country, and throughout the State, people know them. But 
oftentimes--and one of the reasons we started this whole series many 
years ago--this is a person who has worked more behind the scenes day 
in, day out, year in, year out, doing the kind of public service that 
is so vital to the health and well-being of our communities throughout 
Alaska, throughout America, but is not always recognized and certainly 
not recognized enough.
  Our Alaskan of the week, Fairbanks police officer Daniel Welborn, is 
one of those people. He recently retired from the Fairbanks Police 
Force after 26 years--more than a quarter of a century--and is one of 
those everyday heroes who we think are important to highlight as an 
Alaskan of the Week and as an American helping his fellow Americans and 
Alaskans.
  Before I get into Officer Welborn's story, let me tell you a little 
bit about what is going on in Alaska right now. The weather has been 
glorious in many areas--sunny in a lot of places, rainy in others. We 
have a very big State. The summer solstice is just a few days behind 
us. That is the longest day of the year and a huge day in Alaska--
midnight Sun, energy. It is great being in Alaska right now.
  Most of the State has opened up with precautions, of course, in 
place, given the pandemic. More and more people are getting out. The 
salmon are certainly running, beginning to run up our rivers. The bears 
are fully woke--maybe not woke in that sense, but they are awake.
  I was home last week in Fairbanks celebrating the amazing life of my 
mother-in-law, Mary Jane Fate, whom our family put to rest. She was one 
of the most revered Alaskan leaders and elders who recently passed 
away, and we had a beautiful, moving ceremony, talking about this 
trailblazing woman.
  I can't wait to get back home--get back home to Fairbanks in 
particular, the Golden Heart City, where Officer Welborn has spent his 
entire career protecting and defending.
  As you know, much attention has been spent on our Nation's police 
forces in recent weeks, but there hasn't been nearly enough attention, 
in my view, drawn to what it actually means to be a police officer--not 
an easy job--and to be a good police officer--a critically important 
job--which the vast majority of police officers--certainly in Alaska 
but I would say across America--are, good police officers who put their 
lives on the line every day for us, and Alaskans and Americans should 
be grateful that they do that.
  As I have said many times before at police memorial ceremonies back 
home, every job in our country, every job in my State is important, but 
there is something special, noble, even sacred about a job that entails 
protecting others and being willing to put your life on the line to 
keep your fellow citizens safe.
  So let me talk about a good police officer, one of many in my State. 
Dan Welborn and his large Catholic family of seven brothers and sisters 
moved to Fairbanks in 1988. Dan's father was in the Army, which, of 
course, draws a lot of people to the Golden Heart City of Fairbanks and 
to the great State of Alaska. We have more veterans per capita than any 
State in the country. By his father and mother and probably, I am sure, 
a bunch of his siblings, he was taught discipline and respect and the 
importance of giving back to his community.
  Dan graduated from West Valley High in Fairbanks and then went on to 
the University of Alaska at Fairbanks--UAF, as we call it. As a 
student, he began working with the campus police, which piqued his 
interest in law enforcement as a career and led him--he put himself 
through the law enforcement academy in Alaska.
  Eventually, newly married and considering starting a family, Dan got 
a job at the Fairbanks Police Department, and that is the job he has 
kept for 26 years, and he has done it very well. He has done nearly 
every job there is to do on the force. Traffic duty, patrol, oversight 
of investigations, homicides, sexual assaults, fraud, forgery, computer 
and internet crimes--you name it, Dan's done it. He helped build a 
property crimes unit in Fairbanks.
  He wrote dozens and dozens of grants to help the department get the 
equipment it needed so they can keep up with the times.
  His awards are extensive. I was looking at his record. It is very 
impressive--Officer of the Year, numerous service awards and ribbons.
  His community service is also extensive beyond just being a police 
officer--serving on the board of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 
starting a project called Operation Glow in Fairbanks, which helps keep 
kids safe on Halloween when they are out trick-or-treating.
  In 2016, Officer Welborn was promoted to deputy chief of police 
where, again, he excelled. He is known throughout the State for his 
solid decisionmaking, his even temperament, and for the good way that 
he has with people. He is judicious and stern when needed, but always 
kind, considerate, and respectful, which is what we want in our police 
force.
  Service also runs in Dan's family. I love this part of his life. His 
brother Doug is also a Fairbanks police officer, and his son Brett was 
sworn in as a Fairbanks police officer on May 20, a month ago. Wow. 
That is a family of service.
  What he tells his son Brett is this:

       It's important that you understand defensive tactics. [This 
     is not always easy work.] But the most important thing is 
     your people skills. You need to be able to sympathize 
     [empathize] with people, and take charge if you need to. And 
     if you need to take charge and you get someone under control, 
     you must treat them with professionalism and respect. It's a 
     hard thing to remember [sometimes], but it's the most 
     critical thing to remember.

  That is Officer Welborn. That is sage wisdom.
  Now, I hear that Dan will be moving to St. Louis to be close to his 
beloved baseball team, the Cardinals. He will miss the community, his 
job, and his

[[Page S3303]]

family. By the way, his sister Patty wrote this great letter to me, 
which I read all about his community service.
  Boy, Dan, your sister thinks you are amazing. We hope that you will 
come back. Actually, we are pretty confident you are going to come back 
to Alaska because we want you to come back. You are not done serving 
our community.
  We know this: Officer Welborn will certainly be missed, and he will 
miss being a patrol officer. He loved working the traffic beat because 
of all the people he got to meet and all the times he got to help 
people on the road. Of course, there are things about the job he won't 
miss. I am not sure this is talked about enough, images that will 
likely stick with him and images that, unfortunately, haunt many police 
officers across the country because the fact of the matter is, people 
can be difficult. People can be brutal to each other, domestic violence 
and child abuse. The police see it all. It is not easy, and he has 
witnessed way too much of that brutality, and he has protected 
Fairbanks' citizens from a lot of it.
  Here is what he also knows: Mostly, the vast majority of people are 
good, and that is so important to remember. Alaskans are good people. 
Americans are good people. He has witnessed that, too, and he has 
contributed to that goodness.
  He recently told a story about a time at the department that will 
stay with him. He talked about attending a wedding at a hotel. There 
was a man there setting tables and working at the hotel. He looked at 
Officer Welborn and said, ``Officer, can I talk to you for a minute?'' 
He said, ``Sure.'' This man went up to Officer Welborn and said:

       Officer, you probably don't remember me, but you arrested 
     me years ago for a DUI. [I was having problems then, and] 
     I've turned my life around since then. All these years later, 
     Officer Welborn, I still remember how well you treated me.

  Think about that. Those are the kind of good memories that will stay 
with Dan too. So, thank you, Officer Welborn, for all you have done for 
our community and the great city of Fairbanks. Thanks for your service 
to Alaska and to America. Thanks for protecting us and for setting the 
example with respect.
  We wish you all the happiness in retirement. We really want you to 
come back to Alaska, so don't stay in St. Louis too long. The Cardinals 
aren't even that good of a baseball team.
  Congratulations on being our Alaskan of the Week.
  I yield the floor.
  (Mr. SULLIVAN assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The majority leader.

                          ____________________