[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 30, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3993-S3998]
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 Iowa.


                      Multiemployer Pension System

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, since I reclaimed chairmanship of the 
Finance Committee at the start of this Congress, one of my top 
priorities has been to fix the failing multiemployer pension system and 
to help secure retirement benefits of more than 10 million workers and 
retirees in these multiemployer plans.
  This is especially important since 150 multiemployer plans have 
failed or terminated, and many others are expected to run out of money 
in the coming 10 years. In the decade after that, many more plans are 
expected to fail. In all, more than 1.5 million Americans would be 
affected by the failure of these multiemployer pension plans.
  Now, the coronavirus has had its effect on these plans as well. We 
don't yet have a firm read on how much the economic downturn has 
affected plans' funding or even the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation's insurance fund backing up those plans that have failed. 
We expect more details on those issues later this summer.
  Now, one thing that we do know for sure is that this problem is only 
going to get worse and more costly to resolve if we wait longer to 
solve it. That is why all this concentration at this point. Now we have 
a real opportunity to get it fixed--and hopefully this year.
  Last November, Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee 
chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and I released a draft plan to 
reform the multiemployer pension system, protect retirees, and at the 
same time secure the PBGC's insurance fund. We received many thoughtful 
and constructive comments, and we worked over the past several months 
to address those comments to make our reform plan as effective and 
balanced as possible.
  So what is standing in the way? The usual thing: You have got to have 
bipartisanship to get anything done in the U.S. Senate. The short 
answer is that the Democratic leadership doesn't seem to be very 
interested in working to find that bipartisan solution. They seem to 
think the no-strings bailout which they tried to force into the CARES 
Act in March and which now appears in the House's HEROES Act is somehow 
a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. That doesn't work very well, 
particularly in the Senate, where it takes bipartisanship to get 
anything done.
  I would also hope that they are not playing election-year politics. 
If they are, then they are playing those election-year politics with 
the retirement security of millions of Americans. As every day goes on, 
the prospects of people retiring on what they thought they were going 
to retire on--these multiemployer plans--is getting less and less. 
Delaying a solution until next year is only going to make it more 
costly, and it will still require bipartisan support.
  We can and we must do better if we want a healthy multiemployer 
system for the long haul. We have a chance to fix this problem long 
term. Otherwise, we will be right back here in 5 or 10 years dealing 
with the same problem.

[[Page S3994]]

  To put this in perspective, let's consider what it means to do 
nothing and to leave the current law unchanged, versus what Chairman 
Alexander and I propose in several key areas.
  First, for retiree benefits, doing nothing means the PBGC insurance 
fund runs out of money in 2027. If the fund goes broke, that means the 
PBGC will only be able to pay benefits equal to the premium revenues 
that it receives, which are minimal compared to the potential claims. 
That means retirees could receive cuts in the range of 90 percent.
  Let me say that another way. If these plans go broke and these people 
are forced into the government-run insurance backup plan, they are 
going to potentially get 90-percent cuts in their retirement. That is 
the necessity for us to work hard now to get this job done
  Now, in contrast, the plan Senator Alexander and I are proposing 
would preserve benefits and ensure solvency of the PBGC's multiemployer 
system over the long run. It would save many failing plans by having 
the government pay a portion of benefits earlier than under current 
law. That would help the plan to stretch its assets much longer and at 
the same time preserve benefits as promised under that plan.
  Second, for plans that aren't able to be saved, our proposal would 
increase the insurance guarantee amount from the current $12,870 
maximum for a retiree with 30 years of service to over $20,000.
  Benefits will be preserved with the help of additional support from 
employer and union stakeholders and a modest retiree insurance premium 
for retirees in plans that face financial challenges. That premium 
would be no more than 10 percent and eliminated entirely for older and 
disabled retirees, as well as for plans that are well funded. That is 
far better than the 90-percent cut that I already told you about if we 
just do nothing.
  Doing nothing also means more and more plans will become underfunded 
or maybe even worse, insolvent, resulting in major benefit cuts and 
then only that very small benefit that is covered by the government's 
guaranty program, the insurance fund that we call the PBGC.
  The Grassley-Alexander plan would provide relief to the failing 
plans, and, without an upfront benefit cut, it would restore the 
benefit cuts that some plans chose to make under the Multiemployer 
Pension Reform Act in 2014. It would also increase the PBGC insurance 
guarantee amount by more than 50 percent.
  Third, for other plans not on the brink, doing nothing would mean 
that the current minority of multiemployer plans that are better funded 
would continue to shrink, with many more likely to move into the danger 
zone in the coming years. Our plan would provide significant funding 
reforms--with emphasis on reforms--to help prevent that from happening. 
In other words, those that are in pretty good shape wouldn't get worse.
  Key variables, like the discount rate that plans use to estimate 
future assets and liability values, would be subject to new standards 
to help ensure that plans are funded to provide the benefits they 
promised. But we have taken to heart comments we have heard from 
stakeholders that those changes need to be phased in over a sufficient 
period of time to allow plans to transition smoothly.
  Our plan would institute other changes to improve the early warning 
system so multiemployer plans can avoid flirting with the underfunding 
danger zone. It also provides needed oversight for plans in trouble, 
and it would provide unions and employers the opportunity to set up 
composite plans--a new type of hybrid retirement plan that enjoys wide 
bipartisan support.
  Something pretty important to note, the fundamental tenet of the 
Grassley-Alexander reform plan is that all stakeholders have a role in 
fixing the multiemployer pension system that has been on the current 
path to failure now for four decades.
  Employers and unions have a role in ensuring that adequate 
contributions are made to the plans to ensure sufficient funds to pay 
the promised benefits.
  Plans have a role in ensuring that the PBGC insurance fund backing up 
those benefits is adequately funded through reasonable premiums, with 
higher risk plans contributing more for that insurance backup.
  Employees and retirees have a role in contributing to the insurance 
coverage that protects their benefits, just like they do now for auto, 
home, and life insurance.
  Last, but not least, is the Federal Government. I don't want to shock 
people, but if you study this, you will know that the government had a 
role in setting out the rules that have governed these plans and 
regulating the operation of these plans, so the government has a role 
in fixing the resulting situation we are in this very day. That means 
taxpayer funds may be needed to help the PBGC provide the partition 
relief for plans on the brink of failing, but those funds must come 
with important reforms to ensure that taxpayers are not back here on 
the hook again in 5 or 10 years.
  This legislation I am talking about looks way ahead, solving two 
problems: the multiemployer pension plans individually--dozens of 
them--and also the insurance fund, the PBGC, that the government has 
for backup so it doesn't go broke by 2027. We take care of two big 
problems all at once. As I just said, we don't want to be back here in 
5 or 10 years.
  Unfortunately, no matter how sensible of a reform plan we come up 
with, it has no chance of success unless our Democratic colleagues are 
willing to sit down and discuss a comprehensive solution.
  The other side has the idea of ``my way or the highway.'' That 
approach is not the pathway to a successful solution. That was clear 
when they tried that tactic during the negotiations of the CARES Act in 
March.
  So how many times do I have to say it? We all know it, all 100 
Senators know it--nothing happens in Congress without bipartisanship.
  I invited our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--I have had 
more than one conversation with Speaker Pelosi--asking all to join me 
and Senator Alexander in finding a bipartisan solution. That invitation 
still stands, and we remain ready to talk. Let's use the time that we 
have to negotiate a balanced, sensible solution to this increasingly 
critical problem so that we are ready whenever that opportunity 
presents itself to enact that solution this year. The retirees in each 
of our States, the businesses in each of our States, and the unions in 
each of our States that support these pension plans and our long-term 
Federal budget deserve no less consideration than what I have laid out.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2740

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, it may seem like a long time ago, but it 
was only 3 months ago when Congress came together, in a rare bipartisan 
fashion, and we passed the CARES Act. We did that to help address the 
unprecedented needs of the country and the American people as we began 
to address the global pandemic. It was the third emergency 
appropriations bill Congress has passed this year to address the impact 
of the coronavirus. Yet despite its scope and size, we knew then, and 
we all acknowledged then, that absent a miracle, it would not be the 
last emergency appropriations bill required.
  At that time, we all knew the number of COVID cases would continue to 
grow at an alarming rate, as would the number of deaths. Each death has 
left in its wake friends, family, and loved ones, all devastated by a 
loss that can never be undone. In those 3 months, we have also seen our 
economy grind to a halt. More than 47 million men and women have filed 
for unemployment. Families are struggling to pay their bills. They are 
worried about putting food on the table, paying their rent, and caring 
for their children. Lines at food banks are at historic highs, 
including in my home State of Vermont. For many, the situation is 
desperate.
  I wish we could say we were through the worst of it and things could 
now return to normal. We know that we cannot. Florida, Texas, Arizona, 
North

[[Page S3995]]

Carolina, Alabama, and Oklahoma, just to name a few, are seeing an 
alarming spike in cases. Health experts are ringing the alarm bell, 
including the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who had 
previously spent a lot of time trying to defend this administration's 
anemic response.
  We all know this virus is far from vanquished. As numbers continue to 
rise across the Nation and new hot spots emerge, it is clear we are 
going to need another emergency appropriations bill to address this 
epidemic, and, frankly, we need it now.
  At times like this, the country needs real leadership and vision. We 
need to get out in front of this crisis, not make all kinds of response 
after the fact. We know our leadership is not coming from the White 
House. The President has made very clear in his statements that he 
believes opening the economy and fighting the virus are competing 
actions. He gives the American people a false choice.
  I believe that only if we effectively fight the virus are we then 
able to open the economy, whether in my State or any other State. Now, 
6 weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Heroes Act. It is 
a strong proposal. It provides assistance to struggling families. It 
supports State and local governments. It battles the virus by 
sponsoring a responsible testing program. It recognizes the sacrifices 
being made by grocery store clerks, first responders, nurses, doctors, 
truckers, and more. It makes critical changes to programs such as SNAP, 
which supports those among us who are struggling the most.
  Let's talk about what we have done. The first week or the second week 
or the third week or the fourth week or the fifth week or the sixth 
week since the House passed that bill, what has the Senate done? 
Nothing. Despite numerous calls from myself and Democratic leadership 
in the Senate, weeks have gone by and the White House and the 
Republican majority refuse to move forward on a bill, or even start 
negotiations.
  In fact, the majority leader has publicly stated that he and the 
White House want to take ``a pause'' before considering any further 
emergency legislation related to COVID-19. The White House alternates 
between silence on the issue and sending contradictory messages of what 
it thinks needs to be done. While we wait, cases continue to climb; the 
death toll mounts; and people continue to struggle. You cannot tell the 
people who have COVID to pause and it will go away.
  You cannot tell the doctors and nurses who are working around-the-
clock and to the point of exhaustion to just pause. That does not work. 
The fact is, they are dealing with this every single day and night, 7 
days a week. They would love to have a pause, but the reality is such 
that they cannot.
  To those who say it is premature to act on another bill--well, let's 
look at what we already know. At the end of July, the Federal pandemic 
unemployment compensation program that Congress included in the CARES 
Act expires. That is next month. Next month starts tomorrow. This 
program provides an additional $600 per week in unemployment benefits 
to more than 28 million Americans. In many cases, the money is the 
difference between paying the rent and getting evicted. The money keeps 
the electricity on and food on the table. It feeds the children. At the 
same time, many State-initiated eviction moratoriums expire next month, 
which begins in just a few hours, as does the eviction moratorium for 
people in federally assisted housing included in the CARES Act. It is a 
one-two punch with the end of Federal benefits and the end of eviction 
protections, which will potentially displace a record number of 
Americans into homelessness. As eviction proceedings mount and 
Americans find they have no way to pay for alternative housing, the 
homeless shelters will almost certainly swell. But the shelters 
themselves are already over capacity and ill-equipped to handle an 
influx. We must act.
  What about our struggling small businesses? The small businesses in 
my State of Vermont are the backbone of our economy. What about them? 
As of today, the Small Business Administration can no longer approve 
loans for the popular Paycheck Protection Program.
  Parents are worried about their children. They struggle to find safe 
childcare. They wonder, Are schools going to open in the fall or not? 
And when they open, many schools will be using some form of online 
instruction. Over 16 million children in this country do not have 
internet service at home, and 12 million children do not have a home 
computer or laptop to use. This is the wealthiest nation in the world. 
We need to close this gap by providing reliable internet and broadband 
service to the millions of households in this country who do not have 
it. All kids deserve a good education, not just those from families who 
can afford it. Coming from a rural State, this is something I am 
particularly concerned about. We can't wait until the fall to figure 
this out; it will be too late.
  I know that every Senator here has rural areas in his or her State, 
and in a lot of those areas there is no internet service.
  We also know we need to protect our elections. Due to the pandemic, 
voters are using common sense, and they are choosing to vote by mail in 
record numbers, something we have already done in Vermont, but many 
States aren't prepared to meet this demand. They look at us. Every one 
of us will say, yes, of course we want to protect voters; of course, we 
want to protect voters; of course, every vote counts; of course, it is 
the American way to vote; of course, we want people to vote. Ha, ha, 
and ha. Congress has provided only a fraction of the funding needed by 
States to prepare for the general election. Voters don't have to choose 
between exercising their constitutional right of voting or getting very 
ill.

  Now, we know States cannot cover election costs on their own. They 
are cash-strapped already from responding to the coronavirus pandemic. 
The Wall Street Journal has estimated that State and local governments 
have already furloughed or eliminated 1.5 million jobs since the 
pandemic began. That might look like just a statistic to some, but 
these are teachers; these are firefighters; and these are healthcare 
workers. Congress, for the sake of this country, needs to enact another 
tranche of funding for State and local governments. We have to help 
them deal with lost revenue or our economy is not going to recover. It 
will never recover.
  As revenues fall and costs to address COVID increase, Native American 
Tribes have also been forced to furlough workers, curtail healthcare 
services, and in some cases close down clinics entirely.
  There are numerous other examples of urgent needs, too many to list. 
Due to declining revenues and incoming fees, the United States 
Citizenship and Immigration Services--USCIS--may be forced to cut back 
drastically on services and furlough at least 13,000 employees, 
including up to 1,700 in Vermont, by August 2. That is 4 short weeks 
from now. The notice to these employees went out this week, leaving 
these dedicated employees and their families in limbo wondering if they 
will have a job in August and wondering why Congress will not act to 
prevent it.
  COVID has caused a 3-month delay in field operations for the Census, 
and the Department of Commerce needs additional money to ensure we get 
an accurate count. Our federal prisons, a hotspot for COVID, have 
already depleted the money we provided to them in CARES and need more 
if they are to prevent further outbreaks. Even the Senate has depleted 
the funding Congress provided in CARES to conduct deep cleaning of the 
Capitol and Senate and House buildings and to provide important 
personal protective equipment for Senators and staff.
  It is also imperative for America to step up and address the pandemic 
abroad. We are part of the world. The COVID-related needs around the 
world are spiking. We cannot defeat the virus right here at home if we 
do not act now to assist other countries in the global fight against 
this pandemic as we have in the past. Senate Republicans and President 
Trump must demonstrate leadership. You are not going to stop this 
health crisis by tweets; you are going to stop it by real action.
  Now, in a few short days, the Senate is going to recess for 2 weeks. 
If we do nothing else before the Senate goes out of session, we should 
do what all the experts agree is needed if we are going to defeat this 
virus: Create a comprehensive testing and contact tracing

[[Page S3996]]

program and provide the resources needed to implement it for all 50 of 
our States. This is how other countries have succeeded in flattening 
the curve and containing the spread.
  Yet, in a shocking abdication of leadership, the President has thrown 
up his hands. He has walked away from this issue. He even said at a 
recent campaign rally that we should be doing less testing, not more. 
That is not leadership; that is politics. That is not keeping Americans 
safe. I want all Americans to be safe. I do not care whether they are 
Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. I want all Americans to be 
safe.
  His political Press Secretary tried to say he was kidding, but he 
said he was not. The Federal Government recently announced it shut down 
numerous federally funded testing sites across the country, including 
seven in Texas where cases are rising. It is astonishing.
  I have been in the Senate with Republican and Democratic Presidents 
alike, from the time of President Ford. All of these Presidents, in 
both parties, were willing to show leadership in serious matters, but 
if this President cannot or will not show leadership, then the Congress 
must step in and do it.
  I will tell you what I learned when I came here. I never expected to 
become the dean of the Senate, but I think about it often. I was told 
by both Republican and Democratic leaders at that time that the Senate 
can and should be the conscience of the Nation. I have seen Republicans 
and Democrats come together and exercise that conscience at times when 
we so need it. Where is that now? Nobody owns a seat in the U.S. 
Senate, but we are given 6-year terms in which we should be able to 
think of doing the right thing and not just worry about the next tweet 
or the next newsbreak or what is said 5 minutes from now. We have 6-
year terms so that we can sit back and do what is right. Let us be the 
conscience of the Nation. I have always been proud of this body when I 
have seen Republicans and Democrats come together and do that.
  The Heroes Act passed 6 weeks ago in the House. It created the COVID-
19 National Testing and Contact Tracing Initiative. It requires the 
Department of Health and Human Services, in coordination with State and 
local governments, to develop a comprehensive testing, contact tracing, 
surveillance, and monitoring system. It provides $75 billion to 
implement it. If we want to save lives, if we want to reopen the 
country, and if we want to get our economy going again, we ought to at 
least pass this initiative. I want my family to be safe. I want my wife 
and my children to be safe and their children and their spouses to be 
safe. I want all Vermonters and everybody in all 50 of our States to be 
safe, and we need testing.
  I am soon going to ask unanimous consent on a particular item, and I 
understand that Senator Alexander is going to come to the floor to 
object, so I will withhold making that request.
  There are only 100 of us. We represent over 320 million Americans, 
across the political spectrum. They are all races and all economic 
backgrounds. They are all ages. But they have 100 people who can speak 
for them and speak for the conscience of this Nation
  I am proud to be a U.S. Senator, but I am not proud when we don't 
stand up and act as the conscience of the Nation. What is the use of 
being one of the 100 people who represent this great country, who 
represent and know and hold the history of this country, who have 
helped shape the history of this country through treaties, through 
constitutional amendments, and through debates on everything? What does 
it do to be a Member of the 100 in this body if we cannot reflect the 
conscience of the Nation?
  Now, as Senator Alexander is not yet here, I am going to suggest the 
absence of a quorum, but I want to ask unanimous consent that I be the 
person next recognized to call off that quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as I noted before, I was withholding a 
unanimous consent request until the very distinguished senior Senator 
was here.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 140, H.R. 2740; that the Leahy substitute 
amendment that would provide funding for COVID testing and tracing and 
is at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, 
be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I am glad to see my distinguished 
friend from Vermont of many years, and what I would like to say to him 
is that we, all together, appropriated a record amount of $3 trillion--
another $3 trillion in credit--most of which, much of which has not 
even been spent yet, and some of which hasn't been distributed to 
States yet. We are in the midst of reviewing the spending of that 
money. I know our own committee has had five hearings this month on 
COVID and its consequences, and I think the wiser course with the 
taxpayers' money is to wait until the $3 trillion we have appropriated 
has been distributed to States, has been spent, and is carefully 
reviewed. In the meantime, we will work very closely with our friends 
on the other side to determine what else needs to be done during the 
month of July. So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The Senator from Vermont.


                                S. 4049

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, in this unprecedented moment in 
American history, I think there is a crying out all across this country 
for us to rethink who we are as a nation and what our national 
priorities are.
  Whether it is fighting against systemic racism and police brutality, 
whether it is the need to combat climate change and transform our 
energy system away from fossil fuel, whether it is the absurdity of 
being the only major country on Earth not to guarantee healthcare to 
all people as a human right, or whether it is the grotesque level of 
income and wealth inequality, where three people today own more wealth 
than the bottom half of our Nation, all across this country people are 
crying out for change--real change.
  When we talk about the need for real change, it is beyond 
comprehension the degree to which Congress continues to ignore our 
bloated $740 billion defense budget. We talk about everything. 
Democrats and Republicans disagree on almost everything, but when it 
comes to this huge budget, which has gone up by over $100 billion since 
Trump has been President, there is, unfortunately, a broad consensus, 
and that is wrong.
  Year after year, Democrats and Republicans come together with minimal 
debate to support an exploding Pentagon budget, which is now higher 
than that of the next 11 nations combined and represents some 53 
percent of our discretionary spending. We are spending more on the 
military than the next 11 nations combined. That is Russia, China, UK, 
France, and you name it. That is more than all of them combined, and we 
are spending on the military budget over half of our discretionary 
spending.
  Incredibly--and I know we don't talk about this too much--after 
adjusting for inflation, we are now spending more on the military than 
we did during the height of the Cold War, when we were in opposition to 
the Soviet Union, a major superpower, or during the wars in Vietnam and 
Korea. After adjusting for inflation, we are spending more today than 
we did during the time of the Vietnam war.
  This extraordinary level of military spending comes at a time when 
the Department of Defense is the only agency

[[Page S3997]]

of our Federal Government that has not been able to pass an independent 
audit. It comes at a time 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. This is an agency that has not passed an independent audit.
  I believe this is a moment in history when it would be a very good 
idea for the American people and my colleagues here in the Senate to 
remember the very profound statement made by Republican President 
Dwight D. Eisenhower back in 1953. I think all of us remember that 
Eisenhower was a four-star general who led the Allied forces to victory 
in Europe. He knew a little bit about the military.
  Eisenhower said:

       Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every 
     rocket fired 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.

  What Eisenhower said 67 years ago was true then. It is true now. If 
the horrific pandemic we are now experiencing has taught us anything, 
it is that ``national security'' means a lot more than building bombs, 
missiles, jet fighters, tanks, submarines, nuclear warheads, and other 
weapons of mass destruction.
  ``National security'' also means doing everything that we can to make 
sure that every man, woman, and child in this country lives with 
dignity and security, and that includes many people and many 
communities around this country that have been abandoned by our 
government decade after decade.
  Without a moment's hesitation, we spend billions and billions on the 
military, while we come to work and step over people who are sleeping 
out on the streets and move away from communities where children are 
getting totally inadequate educations and where teachers are underpaid.
  I believe that the time is long overdue to begin the transformation 
of our national priorities, and I cannot think of a better way to do 
that than by cutting military spending.
  I have, for this bill, filed three separate amendments, and I would 
like to discuss them briefly.
  The first amendment would reduce the military budget by 10 percent 
and use the $74 billion in savings to invest in distressed communities 
around the country that have been ravaged by extreme poverty, mass 
incarceration, deindustrialization, and decades of neglect. We are 
proposing to transfer money from the military into distressed 
communities all over this country where people are suffering, where 
people are hurting, where people are unemployed, where people don't 
have any healthcare, where infrastructure is crumbling, where people 
need help.
  This amendment is being cosponsored by the Senators from 
Massachusetts--Senator Markey and Senator Warren. Importantly--and I 
hope my colleagues hear this--this amendment has the support of more 
than 60 organizations throughout this country, representing millions of 
workers, environmentalists, and religious leaders, including Public 
Citizen, Union of Concerned Scientists, Physicians for Social 
Responsibility, Greenpeace, and the United Methodist Church.
  At a time when more Americans have died from the coronavirus than 
were killed in World War I, when over 30 million people have lost their 
jobs in recent months, when tens of millions of Americans are in danger 
of being evicted from their homes, when education in America, from 
childcare to graduate school, is in desperate need of reform, when over 
half a million Americans are homeless, when close to 100 million people 
are either uninsured or underinsured, now is the time to invest in our 
people, in jobs, in education, in housing, and in healthcare--not in 
more nuclear weapons, not in more tanks, not in more guns.
  Under this amendment, distressed cities and towns in every State in 
this country would be able to use these funds to create jobs by 
building affordable housing, building new schools, childcare 
facilities, community health centers, public hospitals, libraries, 
sustainable energy projects, and clean drinking water facilities.
  These communities would also receive Federal funding to hire more 
public schoolteachers, provide nutritious meals to children and 
parents, and offer free tuition at public colleges, universities, or 
trade schools.
  This is a pivotal moment in American history, and it is time to 
respond to those crises that we are facing by transforming our national 
priorities.
  Do we really want to spend more--billions more--on endless wars in 
the Middle East, or do we want to provide decent jobs to millions of 
Americans who are now unemployed? Do we want to spend more money on 
nuclear weapons, or do we want to invest in a childcare system that is 
dysfunctional, in an education system where community after community 
lacks the funds to provide decent, quality education for their kids? Do 
we want to invest in affordable housing when half a million Americans 
are homeless and 18 million families in America are spending half of 
their incomes on housing?
  Those are the choices that we face, and I think the American people 
are clear that the time is now to invest in our people, not in more 
weapons systems.
  When we analyze the Defense Department budget, it is very 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. According to the GAO, between 2013 and 2018, the Pentagon returned 
more than $80 billion in funding back to the Treasury
  People sleep out on the streets, children go hungry, schools are 
crumbling, people have no health insurance, but we have given the 
Department of Defense so much money that they are actually returning 
some of it back to the government.
  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 the financial mismanagement that has 
plagued the Department of Defense for decades.
  Let us be clear. About half of the Pentagon's budget--and people, I 
think, don't know this--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 and 
millions of dollars in fines and settlements for misconduct and fraud, 
all while making huge profits on those government contracts. This is at 
a time when we are not very vigorous in terms of our oversight.
  Despite that, since 1995, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and United 
Technologies have paid over $3 billion in fines or related settlements 
for fraud or misconduct--$3 billion. That is what they have been caught 
doing. That is what they have been found guilty of or agreed to in a 
settlement. God knows what else is going on that we still don't know 
about.
  Yet those same three companies received around $1 trillion in defense 
contracts over the past two decades alone.
  Further, 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 Northrup Grumman both made 
around $20 million in total compensation, while around 90 percent of 
the companies' revenue came from defense contracts. In other words, 
these companies--and I am talking about Lockheed Martin and Northrup 
Grumman--for all intents and purposes, are governmental agencies. Over 
90 percent of their revenue comes from the taxpayers. Yet the CEOs of 
those companies made over 100 times more than the Secretary of Defense. 
It is not too surprising, therefore, that we have a revolving door 
where our military people end up on the boards of directors of these 
major defense companies.
  Moreover, as the GAO has told us, there are massive cost overruns in 
the Defense Department's acquisition budget that we have to address. 
According to GAO, the Pentagon's $1.8 trillion acquisition portfolio 
currently suffers from more than $628 billion in cost overruns, with 
much of the cost growth taking place after production. In other words, 
they quote a price, and then they come back after they get the contract 
and say: Oh, we made a slight mistake; you are going to have pay

[[Page S3998]]

twice as much or 50 percent more, whatever it might be, for the weapons 
system you wanted.
  GAO tells us that ``many DoD programs fall short of cost, schedule, 
and performance expectations, meaning DoD pays more than anticipated, 
can buy less than expected, and, in some cases, delivers less 
capability to the warfighter.''
  A major reason why there is so much waste, fraud, and abuse at the 
Pentagon is the fact that the Department of Defense remains the only 
Federal agency that hasn't been able to pass an independent audit. That 
is why I have filed an amendment with Senators Grassley, Wyden, and Lee 
that would require the Defense Department to pass a clean audit no 
later than fiscal year 2025.
  When you have an agency that spends some $700 billion, I don't think 
it is too much to ask that we have an independent audit of the 
Department of Defense
  Interestingly enough, many of us will recall what then-Secretary of 
Defense Donald Rumsfeld--not one of my favorite public officials--told 
the American people on the day before 9/11 about the serious financial 
mismanagement at the DOD. Here is what Donald Rumsfeld said. Needless 
to say, the following day was 9/11. That was the terrorist attack 
against the United States, so what Rumsfeld said the day before that 
never got a whole lot of attention. But this is what a conservative 
Republican Secretary of Defense said:

       Our financial systems are decades old. According to some 
     estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We 
     cannot share information from floor to floor in this 
     building--

  That is the Pentagon.

       because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that 
     are inaccessible or incompatible.

  And yet, nearly 20 years after Donald Rumsfeld's statement, the 
Defense Department has still not passed a clean audit, despite the fact 
that the Pentagon controls assets in excess of $2.2 trillion or, 
roughly, 70 percent of what the entire Federal Government owns.
  The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan 
concluded in 2011 that $31 billion to $60 billion spent in Iraq and 
Afghanistan had been lost to fraud and waste.
  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. More recently, an audit 
conducted by Ernst & Young for the Defense Logistics Agency found that 
it could not properly account for some $800 million in construction 
projects.
  It is time to hold the Defense Department to the same level of 
accountability as the rest of the government. That is not a radical 
idea. And support for this concept is bipartisan. That is why I am 
delighted that this amendment is supported by Senators Grassley and 
Lee, as well as Senator Wyden, and we hope it will be supported by a 
strong majority of the Members of the body.
  I believe in a strong military, but we cannot continue to give more 
money to the Pentagon than it needs when millions of children in our 
country are food insecure--there are kids all over this country, in 
every State in this country, who are hungry--and when we have 140 
million people who cannot afford the basic necessities of life without 
going into debt.
  Further, let us be very clear, when we are talking about the need to 
protect the American people, we are talking about the need to defeat 
our most immediate adversary right now, an adversary that has taken in 
recent months over 120,000 American lives, and that, of course, is the 
coronavirus.
  When we talk about defense, when we talk about protecting the 
American people, we must get our priorities right and do everything we 
can to protect the American people from the coronavirus. I don't think 
nuclear weapons are going to do it. I don't think tanks are going to do 
it. I don't think F-35s are going to do it. But we need to do 
everything we can to protect the lives and the health of the American 
people in terms of the coronavirus.
  What virtually every scientist who has studied this issue will tell 
us--and they just told me that this morning as a member of the HELP 
Committee--is that the most effective way to prevent the transmission 
of this deadly virus and to stop unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 is 
for everybody in this country to wear a mask. It is not rocket science, 
not very complicated, but if you wear a mask when you are in contact 
with other people, the likelihood that you will spread the virus or get 
the virus is significantly reduced.
  That is why I have filed an amendment which requires the Trump 
administration to use the Defense Production Act to manufacture the 
hundreds and hundreds of millions of high-quality masks that this 
country needs and to deliver them to every household in America.
  This is not a radical idea. It is an idea that is being implemented 
all across the world, in countries like South Korea, France, Turkey, 
Austria, and many other countries; that is, they are distributing high-
quality face masks to all of their people for free or at virtually no 
cost. That is what I believe we have to do.
  There was a study that just came out from the University of 
Washington very recently, which suggested that if 95 percent of the 
American people wore face masks when they interact with others, we 
could save some 30,000 lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
  I think this is a commonsense amendment. It is beyond my 
comprehension how in the wealthiest nation in the world, with the 
strongest economy, we have not been able to produce the personal 
protective equipment--the masks, gowns, gloves--that our doctors and 
nurses and medical personnel need. We have to do that, but we also have 
to produce the masks that the American people need.
  As everyone knows, over the past 3 months, the coronavirus has 
infected more than 2.5 million Americans and caused nearly 130,000 
deaths. More Americans have died from the coronavirus than were killed 
fighting in the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq combined.
  Sadly, there is new evidence that this pandemic is far from over and 
may kill many tens of thousands more. In the past few days, new COVID-
19 cases in the United States have increased dramatically--jumping to 
their highest level in 2 months and returning to where they were at the 
peak of the outbreak.
  If we take bold action now, we could prevent tens of thousands of 
Americans from dying. That is exactly what we have to do. 
Unfortunately, the Trump administration continues to endanger millions 
of Americans by ignoring the most basic recommendations of medical 
professionals and recklessly downplaying the most effective tool we 
have to contain the pandemic; that is, simply wearing a mask.
  This amendment is nothing more than listening to science and saving 
lives. Again, this morning, I participated in a hearing with Dr. Fauci 
and many others from the Trump administration. They were very clear: 
Masks work. Social distancing works. And we should listen to the 
scientists.
  We are, as I mentioned earlier, at a pivotal moment in American 
history. We as elected officials have to respond in a transformational 
way. We have to stand up for people. We have to rethink the way we have 
done things in the past. The amendments I have offered begin the 
process of changing American priorities. I hope all three of those 
amendments will pass.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kentucky.

                          ____________________