[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 30, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4002-S4011]
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 Minnesota.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4033

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss 
the threats facing our upcoming elections--threats from the coronavirus 
and threats posed by foreign adversaries--and to once again urge my 
Republican colleagues to immediately take up legislation to address 
these threats.
  As ranking member of the Rules Committee, I am proud to be speaking 
on the floor today with my Democratic colleagues--including Senators 
Blumenthal, Warner, Durbin, Coons, and Wyden--who will speak during the 
next hour on the need to protect our elections and make voting safe and 
easy throughout this pandemic and beyond. And that is safe and easy for 
Democrats, for Republicans, for Independents, for members of any party 
or anyone who wants to vote. This is not a partisan issue. Voting in 
our democracy is not a partisan issue. Everyone who wants to vote 
should be able to vote for whomever they want to vote for.

  Today there are primaries happening in Colorado and Utah--two of the 
five States that vote almost entirely by mail--as well as Oklahoma.
  As cases of coronavirus in this country rise, it is vital that all 
voters be able to cast their ballots from home, to cast their ballots 
by mail--a system that Colorado and Utah know to be safe and secure. We 
have heard Senator Romney speak out strongly in defense of vote-by-mail 
and how it works in Utah. We have heard elected officials in Colorado, 
both Democrats and Republicans--these two States that have primaries 
today--say that their system works, that their democracies work.
  This week we are also working to pass the National Defense 
Authorization Act. Colleagues, let me be clear. If we are concerned 
about defending our country, then we must protect our democracy, and if 
our elections are not safe, then our democracy is not secure. Election 
security is national security.
  We shouldn't spend more on military bands--I love military bands, but 
we shouldn't spend more on military bands than we do on securing our 
elections on a Federal level--especially now, when we have foreign 
adversaries that the intelligence officials in the Trump administration 
have long said were emboldened by the last election--as in Russia--and 
will try to do this again.
  We should not be spending more on military bands than securing our 
election on a Federal level when, in fact, we have a situation where a 
pandemic has made it unsafe for people to vote, especially seniors and 
people with preexisting conditions, especially our veterans.

[[Page S4003]]

  The Government Accountability Office conducted a study and found that 
between 2012 and 2016, the U.S. military spent $1.5 billion on military 
bands. Since our elections were attacked by Russia in 2016, Congress 
has given $805 million to modernize our election systems and protect 
them from future attacks. That is about 6 percent of the cost of a new 
aircraft carrier. That was given to the States after the biggest attack 
on our elections in modern history. We now know they tried to get into 
every single State. They tried to hack. In Illinois, they got as close 
as the voter information.
  What must we do? Now we face the immediate threat of COVID-19 as well 
as the threat we have known has been out there for years. I fought hard 
with Senator Coons and others to help secure $400 million, and I 
appreciate the work of my colleague Senator Blunt, the chairman of the 
Rules Committee, in helping us to secure that funding, as well as 
Senator Shelby and Senator Leahy. We know that is not everything we 
need.
  Election officials are using the money from the $805 million in 
election security funding that I already mentioned--which is supposed 
to be used to replace old election equipment and produce a paper 
record, but now we know that election officials in States that are 
already strapped for cash and facing enormous debts are having to buy 
protective masks, cleaning supplies, and are trying to figure out how 
they are going to keep polling locations open and safe versus postage 
and envelopes.
  Last week I was glad to appear here with my friend Senator Blunt. He 
has said that he is open to working with us on funding as well as 
making some corrections from the last bit of money that was sent out. 
He is also going to be holding a hearing in our committee on elections, 
which I truly appreciate during this time of pandemic.
  As I said, elections are a matter of national security, and during a 
global pandemic, they are a matter of public health and safety. 
Contrary to what the President has been saying, I would rather put 
ballots in an envelope than put voters in the hospital. Yet our 
President keeps questioning the security of vote-by-mail. Yet we have 
Republican Senators like Senator Romney who said security in their 
States works quite well.
  Our job now is to realize that 25 percent of the people have been 
voting by mail in the last few Federal elections, and we want to 
greatly increase that number. We know that not everyone will vote by 
mail. We know part of the solution is having poll workers who are not 
as susceptible to the virus, who are in safe conditions. We know part 
of the solution is keeping the polls open as long as possible, early in 
States, like my State, which keeps the polls open weeks before an 
election so then voters don't congregate as much. We also know a big 
part of the solution is making voting by mail available to everyone.
  We have seen what has happened when people can't vote safely. No one 
will forget the images of those voters in line in Milwaukee, in garbage 
bags and homemade masks, just waiting to exercise their right to vote. 
No one will forget the numbers--that dozens and dozens of them 
contracted the coronavirus and that, in fact, poll workers got sick 
from that day.
  No one will forget the image recently in Georgia of people waiting 
and waiting--of a woman who had marched with Dr. King, now in her 
eighties, getting there at 6 a.m., waiting, and then actually staying 
because she wanted to make sure her friends would be able to vote.
  We have seen the President's tweets about voting by mail. These 
tweets are a direct hit on our democracy. They degrade the integrity of 
our voting system, and people shouldn't fall for it. We know that these 
States that have been holding elections that are mostly by mail--Utah, 
Oregon, Colorado, Hawaii, and Washington--have done a good job. Some of 
those States are blue States, some are purple States, and some are red 
States. Again, just like the virus, it doesn't know if it is hitting 
someone who is a Democrat or Republican. Vote-by-mail--it works 
regardless of what someone's political affiliation is.
  So it has really concerned me, what the President has been saying. As 
the New York Times editorial board noted, States that use vote-by-mail 
essentially have zero fraud. Oregon, the pioneer in this area, has sent 
out more than 100 million ballots since 2000 and has documented only 
about a dozen cases of proven fraud. Rounded to the seventh decimal 
point, that is 0.0000001 percent of all votes cast.

  To top it off, while those voters were standing in line in garbage 
bags and homemade masks in Wisconsin in the rain, the President was 
voting in the luxury of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with his own mail-in 
ballot that he obtained from Palm Beach, FL. That is what he did. 
Everyone should have that same right.
  So what do we do in the midst of this pandemic? We need to make sure 
that no voter has to choose between their health and exercising their 
right to vote. That is why I am urging my colleagues to support 
legislation with Senator Wyden that is now cosponsored by 36 other 
Senators, the National Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act, to help 
election officials meet this pandemic head-on.
  What does it do? Well, it has the funding. I am so pleased that my 
colleague Senator Blunt has said he is willing to work with us and work 
with me on that funding as we work to negotiate COVID-related 
provisions, I hope, in the next few weeks.
  Our legislation does more. It starts with guaranteeing every American 
the option to vote by mail. Sixteen States require voters to provide an 
excuse if they want to cast a ballot by mail. I will note that during a 
pandemic, 13 of these States are allowing all voters to cast a ballot 
by mail without needing to provide an excuse. They have done it because 
Governors have waived things, because legislatures have done their job. 
But it still remains with three States--three States still have those 
provisions in place. Why, during the midst of a national pandemic that 
isn't hitting just one State--it is not about just Vermont or Wisconsin 
or Hawaii; it is about every single State--why would we not at least 
have a floor requirement that people be able to vote without an excuse?
  Why would some States still require a notary? Yes, that is in place. 
Six States have a provision that you either have to have a notary or 
two witnesses in order to get a mail-in ballot. Yes, some of these 
States have waived that. That is a good thing. But why wouldn't we just 
simply, since they all have not waived it, put in place some simple 
requirements that everyone knows will guarantee them their right to be 
able to obtain a ballot?
  The bottom line is that it should be easy to vote and not hard to 
vote.
  We are not alone in this fight. Our legislation has been endorsed by 
more than a dozen organizations, including the group founded by former 
First Lady Michelle Obama, When We All Vote; the Leadership Conference 
on Civil and Human Rights; the Lawyers' Committee on Civil Rights; Voto 
Latino; the National Urban League; and Common Cause.
  I think the key here, though, as we head into--I know my friend is 
going to object to the legislation as is, but I think the key, as we 
move ahead the next few weeks, is for everyone to step back and talk to 
your secretaries of state and talk to your Governors. You are going to 
find that both Democratic and Republican Governors are saying: Look, we 
are already strapped for cash. We had no idea the pandemic was coming 
our way. We didn't plan ahead in our budgets last year. We need some 
help in our State to be able to mail in all the ballots so people will 
be able to vote.
  At the very least, I hope that is what comes out of this.
  Last, I will tell you, the American people are ahead of this body 
right now. Three polls released in the last couple of months show that 
an overwhelming majority of voters--over 80 percent--favor measures to 
make voting safe and easy in November by expanding early and mail-in 
voting. Seventy-four percent of voters want their Senators to support 
legislation to implement voting reform, including a majority of 
Republican voters in those States. That is across party lines. That is 
why I hope my colleagues will join us, and we can get this done.
  So, Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Rules Committee be discharged

[[Page S4004]]

from further consideration of S. 4033, the National Disaster and 
Emergency Ballot Act of 2020, and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third 
time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I could make 
this really simple by just saying: Look at everything I said last week 
about this same bill, but I know that Senator Klobuchar is here in good 
faith trying to be sure we call attention to this issue.
  She and I are working together on the Joint Committee for the 
Presidential Inauguration that we formed just today. Six people were 
appointed to that bipartisan committee. I was pleased to have her 
nomination to be the chairman of that event again. We find ways to work 
together.
  I think on this bill, there is really nothing simple about this bill. 
It is not a bill that just allows the other three States somehow to 
meet the standard that all but three States have now moved toward--not 
exactly as this bill would have them, but, as my friend just pointed 
out, 13 of the 16 States have changed their provisions, some just for 
this election. Some will look at it, and they will decide whether they 
did it exactly right or they need to further modify it. Others will 
make that maybe a permanent part of their process.
  I am of the view that this is one of the things States and local 
governments really do well.
  We will have a hearing next month--Senator Klobuchar and I have 
worked together to talk about what that hearing will look like--where I 
hope we will have at least one local election official, some State 
election officials, and some people concerned about the civil rights 
aspects of voting. That hearing will also get into the challenges that 
States face and particularly the challenges that States and communities 
face if they try to change too much too quickly.
  I think both Senator Klobuchar and I were pleased to see Georgia, for 
instance, change their voting system to where they have a voting 
system--they were one of the handful of States that still had a voting 
system left that didn't have an audit trail--didn't have a paper audit 
trail. Well, they changed the system, but they changed it, and I don't 
know that they had many options. They had gotten behind on this issue, 
in my view. They changed it on primary election day. It was probably 
too big an election to try an entirely new system you are not used to, 
just like some of the changes in this bill. While I might not be for 
them, I can certainly argue, even if I were for them, this is not 
something you want to try to change at this moment. Legislators have 
met; States have acted; and 13 of the 16 have changed their laws to 
accommodate the moment we are in. The three that haven't will have to 
be answerable for their decision not to do that.

  Not only are we going have a hearing to talk about this, Senator 
Klobuchar and I have talked about funding on these issues for some 
time. As she pointed out, we put in over $800 million and made it 
available to the States. I will also point out that a lot of that money 
is still not spent. But I am prepared not only to look at more money 
for the States to use as they see fit for elections this year but also 
to even consider whatever kind of matching requirement we have to see 
if that matching requirement is reasonable.
  We continue to work toward an election that produces a result that 
people have confidence in and is done in a way that everybody that 
wants to vote gets to vote. I continue to feel strongly, and let me, 
once again, quote President Obama that the diversity of our system is 
really one of the strengths of the system.
  For months, Democrats had legislation very similar to this to 
federalize the election system because we needed more ballot security. 
Now we have elections, but the new reason is, well, we have a pandemic. 
But the goal appears to be always the same--to federalize the election 
process.
  That would have meant that in Nashville, when they had a tornado, 
hours before the polls were to open on Super Tuesday, the local 
officials wouldn't have had nearly the flexibility they had to 
immediately change polling locations, put out the notice they thought 
was appropriate, and extend voting hours. Nobody in Washington, DC, had 
to give permission for commonsense decisions that apparently everybody 
in Tennessee thought were the best things to do.
  So, with great appreciation for my friend's dedication to this issue, 
with certainly a willingness to be sure that money is not an obstacle 
in States being able to have successful elections this year in areas 
where we can help--now, we are going to look at what we can do to help 
financially within the matrix of the elections that a State and local 
communities in that State have determined should be their election 
structure. In most cases, it is an election structure that has served 
them well in the past, that people fully understand, but, still, the 
need to accommodate the health needs of people who normally were 
election workers or people who have a great record of being voters or 
people who are voting for the first time will be part of what we need 
to discuss. We can do that without a Federal takeover of the election 
system. With that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Blunt for his 
leadership on the Rules Committee and on the inauguration. We have a 
big group and are working together well on that. I look forward to our 
hearing.
  We, obviously, don't agree about this legislation, but I truly 
appreciate the olive branch and his willingness to talk about funding 
at this critical time for our States and our democracy. I look forward 
to doing that with my many colleagues in the next few weeks.
  Now I would like to turn this over to one of our great leaders, my 
colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. No one should have to risk 
their life to cast a vote. That is why it is so important to have safe 
opportunities to allow Americans to participate in a democracy and to 
fulfill their right in November.
  Thankfully, in Illinois, Gov. J.B. Pritzker recently signed 
legislation expanding safe voting opportunities for all Illinois 
voters. Under the new law, about 5 million voters with active 
registrations will automatically receive an application to vote by mail 
for the 2020 election.
  Voting by mail and voting safely at home is a necessary option in the 
midst of a global pandemic that has already killed more than 126,000 
Americans and a total of more than half a million around the world. 
Despite the deceptive and sometimes deceitful narrative being pushed by 
some, voting by mail is a secure option.
  As the Brennan Center for Justice explained in a recent analysis, 
``Since [the year] 2000 more than 250 million votes have been cast 
through mailed-out ballots, in all 50 States, according to the Vote at 
Home Institute. . . . Despite this dramatic increase in mail voting 
over time, fraud rates remain infinitesimally small.''
  However, some voters still prefer to vote in person. That is why it 
is important that States offer that option, with safety procedures to 
protect them. Under the new law in our State, Illinoisans can vote in 
person if they wish. They can vote early as well. To protect voters and 
poll workers, the law requires all election authorities to comply with 
guidance from the Illinois Department of Public Health on early voting. 
Election authorities in Illinois also may establish curbside voting 
options. Election day will be designated a State holiday in 2020 to 
ensure more safe polling places will be available.
  Why is it so hard for those who are legally entitled to vote in 
America--what does it say about a democracy when the key to that 
democracy of voting by those legally entitled is such a burden and 
hardship?
  These upgrades I have talked about are expensive. That is why the 
Federal Government needs to help. The CARES Act took a first step. I 
thank Senator Klobuchar for her role in including provisions that 
provided $400 million to help States prepare for the 2020 election 
cycle. Illinois received about $14 million. Another $3.6 billion is 
needed

[[Page S4005]]

in the next package to help all States increase the ability to vote by 
mail, expand early voting and online registration, and increase the 
safety of voting in person. The President of the United States votes by 
mail. What does that tell us? Is he participating in a questionable 
political procedure? I don't think so.
  The House-passed Heroes Act, a few weeks ago, included that money, 
and I am committed to working with my colleagues to ensure those 
critical funds are included in any COVID-19 relief package that we may 
consider.
  I am also proud to sponsor Senator Klobuchar's Natural Disaster and 
Emergency Ballot Act, which would also provide necessary funding and 
safeguards to protect voters. I was disappointed to see my Republican 
friends block this important legislation on the floor this afternoon. 
In the middle of this global health crisis, Americans need to know what 
the Federal Government is doing, and they need to know that we are 
doing everything we can to ensure that voters will be able to have 
their voices heard at the ballot box in November.
  If you start with the premise that both political parties don't want 
anyone who is unentitled or cannot legally cast a vote to do so, you 
have to ask the basic question, Why does one major political party look 
for ways to delay, limit, and put hardships on voters and the other 
believes that an expanded electorate reflects America? It should be 
encouraged.
  Federal funding and guidance is clearly needed. Look at the chaos we 
have seen in the last few weeks. Is this America when, in Georgia, 
voters waited more than 6 hours to cast a ballot due to long lines and 
voting machine failures? Is this America in the State of Wisconsin when 
thousands of voters didn't receive their requested absentee ballots, 
leading voters to decide between casting a ballot and protecting their 
health? Last month, a State official said that 71 people--71--people 
were exposed and infected by COVID-19 after voting in person and 
working at the polls in Wisconsin during the primary election. In 
Kentucky, we saw images of voters banging on the windows of 
Louisville's only polling location when the doors were locked after 
traffic at the site prevented a significant number from being able to 
get in line in time.
  These situations are appalling, unacceptable, and downright 
embarrassing in a democracy. It is time for us to come together and 
protect the fundamental right to vote, as well as the health and safety 
of all eligible Americans who seek to exercise it
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois. 
Next, we will hear from Senator Warner, who is the ranking member of 
the Intelligence Committee and a leader in taking on election 
interference from Russia and other foreign adversaries.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank, first of all, as I see him leave 
the floor, the Senator from Illinois, for his very strong statement. I 
am going to echo a lot of the same things. I thank him for his 
continued leadership. And, of course, I know we are going to hear from 
Senator Coons shortly and Senator Blumenthal, but a lot of the efforts 
go to Senator Klobuchar with her leadership on the Senate Rules 
Committee.
  These issues around election security go back to the first bipartisan 
effort immediately after 2016, the Honest Ads Act. It is unfortunate 
that we are now heading into the election--126 days, I believe, left--
and this body has still not voted on a single stand-alone election 
bill, even though we have seen the Russian interference of 2016 and 
even though we know that Russia and other countries are back. I think 
history will judge those who prevented those votes from happening if we 
see the kind of potential disruption this fall that we saw in 2016.
  Today, I am here to join Senator Klobuchar and Senator Blumenthal, as 
well, to make sure that everybody has the right to vote in November and 
that they are able do it in a safe and secure way. As Senator Durbin 
said, from Wisconsin to Georgia, to Kentucky, we are seeing a dangerous 
trend where too many voters are having to choose between their safety 
and their right to vote. My fear is that as we head into November 
without a plan and without a strategy for protecting the right to vote 
and ensuring equal access to the ballot box, we could see levels of 
voter suppression not seen since the Jim Crow era.
  Now, we all know we have enormous challenges with COVID-19, and we 
have to make sure that our polling places don't become vectors for 
spreading the virus. The way we do that is not by restricting access to 
the ballot box, not in the United States of America. That is not how 
the world's greatest democracy should meet this challenge.
  If we are going to preserve the integrity of our elections and the 
trust of the American people, it is essential that States and the 
Federal Government adapt to the challenges of this pandemic and 
actually expand access to the ballot box. In short, we need to make it 
easier and safer for Americans to exercise their right to vote.
  The good news is, we don't have to reinvent the wheel. A number of 
States--red States, blue States, purple States--have adopted a range of 
convenient voting procedures that work quite well. Some of these 
procedures including ample early voting opportunities and no-excuse 
absentee ballots, all of which reduce the risk but also make sure we 
continue to be able to increase access.
  In my home State of Virginia, due to recent legislative changes, we 
have curbside voting for seniors and people with disabilities, and we 
have expanded the no-excuse absentee ballot. Unfortunately, despite all 
these effective and secure tools at our disposal, we have also seen 
States implement restrictions in the name of safety that have 
disenfranchised far too many Americans.
  In Wisconsin's April primary, for example, Milwaukee reduced its 
number of polling places from 180 to just 5. We saw similar moves 
recently in Georgia and Kentucky. We know whom those restrictions 
disenfranchise. It is the poor; it is the elderly; it is workers just 
getting off their shift; and, disproportionately, it is Black and 
Latino voters who face the brunt of these restrictions. The truth is, 
this is not right. I think we all know that.
  We have a moral obligation to make sure our tools to counter COVID-19 
are not used to intimidate and suppress voters. Just last week, Senator 
Klobuchar and I sent letters raising the warning that bad actors could 
use testing, immunity, and protective equipment as a pretense to turn 
away voters or increase the difficulty of reaching the ballot box on 
election day.
  Ideally, our election officials could come together around a national 
strategy of preparing every polling place and precinct for 
administering our elections during a pandemic.
  Unfortunately, there are those, including the President, who have 
tried to politicize this issue. In fact, we have seen the President 
spreading utter misinformation about mail-in voting.
  The President seems to have forgotten that he has voted by mail in 
not simply the last election but in the last three elections. What he 
fundamentally fails to understand is that the right to vote belongs to 
the voters, not to the politicians. It is our job to make sure that 
Americans can exercise their rights in a way that is safe and secure.
  That is why Congress must rise to the occasion and ensure Americans 
can vote safely and securely. The time is now to start serious 
preparations on contingencies to protect our elections from both the 
pandemic and those who take advantage of it.
  I am a sponsor of the bill that Senator Klobuchar has tried to UC 
tonight, and I am disappointed that it was blocked from passing, but I 
look forward to continuing to work with her and all of my other 
colleagues to make sure we get this job done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, two other colleagues are here in 
support of this bill: Senator Blumenthal from the State of Connecticut, 
who is such a leader when it comes to civil rights and is a member of 
the Judiciary Committee; and Senator Coons, who is actually one of the 
leaders of the subcommittee that helped to finance the last expenditure 
for elections during the pandemic and is working with us, through his 
role on the Appropriations

[[Page S4006]]

Committee, to help the States get the money that they need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am so honored and proud to join my 
colleague from Minnesota, who has been such a champion on this issue in 
all kinds of constitutional weather. She has been a leader for all 
seasons on this issue, tireless and steadfast in her advocacy. And my 
colleagues who are here today with us are strong allies and partners, 
and I am really proud and honored to join them today.
  The name of this act is the Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot 
Act. We are in a disaster for our democracy if we do not act, if we 
fail to take the initiative within days, literally, to protect the 
ballot.
  You know, sometimes I think about voters in other countries who 
literally brave death to vote. In one or more countries their hands are 
marked so that they can be identified as having voted, but also, they 
could be identified by opponents of those rights and potentially 
punished for voting.
  Here in this country, there are no such obstacles in the way of 
physical harm, until now. Now we face the threat of an epidemic which 
can deter people from coming to the polls, but it has simply added to 
an ongoing threat from suppression that has existed for years and years 
and years in some parts of the country.
  We need to do everything now to protect voters. It is a shared 
responsibility--Federal and State. In the Federal Government, we know 
that this right is in peril. Look at what has happened in Wisconsin and 
in Georgia: the lines, the closed ballot places, the other kinds of 
confusion and deterrence that have been created.
  In Kentucky's recent primary, fewer than 200 polling places were open 
instead of the 3,700 usually there in a typical election year. That is 
unacceptable. But that State is hardly alone, and we will see that 
pattern repeated unless we act soon.
  In the last decade, 25 States--literally, 25 States--have enacted new 
voting restrictions, including strict photo ID requirements, cutting 
back on the availability of early voting, and registration 
restrictions. These constraints should be of paramount concern.
  The Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act, allowing States 
with long histories of voting discrimination to make it harder for 
voters of color to cast ballots. Coronavirus has added an additional 
layer of voter suppression, which will further result in mass 
disenfranchisement.
  A secure and resilient electoral process is critical to our national 
interest. It should be a matter of pride to all of us, and we should 
all be ashamed and embarrassed that a free, fair, safe, secure, and 
accessible process may be made impossible either by health threats or 
suppression threats.
  States should allow no-excuse, mail-in, absentee voting, expand 
voting periods, and improve the safety of in-person voting. The money 
that is necessary to assure free, fair, accessible balloting--that $3.6 
billion--ought to be a matter of bipartisan acceptance
  Connecticut is known as the Constitution State, but Connecticut has 
work to do, and its State legislature will, in fact, do that work--
hopefully, this month, in July--by expanding mail-in balloting. Those 
kinds of changes in State law may be necessary across the country, but 
here we can make it possible, on our watch, to assure that obstacles to 
fair and full voting are removed.
  We simply can't continue to be unprepared. The fight for voting 
rights remains more critical than ever before. It is a matter of 
integrity and credibility for our democracy. As we look around the 
world, we should be leading by example, not by suppression and 
obstacle.
  We need solutions now to protect Americans' health, but the health of 
our democracy depends on this measure.
  I am proud to join my colleagues. I urge that we have bipartisan 
support for it and that it be expanded.
  I yield the floor to my colleague from Delaware, who has been, also, 
a great advocate in this cause.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues from 
Connecticut, from Virginia, and in particular my colleague from 
Minnesota, who has done such a great job--not just today but as the 
ranking member of the Rules Committee--in fighting for expanding the 
right to vote in the context of this pandemic.
  My colleague from Minnesota has stood to ask for unanimous consent 
for the enactment of the Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act, 
which is a broad and bold framework to ensure access to the ballot in 
every State in the United States in the midst of this ongoing pandemic.
  We are just 4 months from the election--126 days to be exact--and as 
day after day the number of infections has risen, it is clear that this 
pandemic is far from over. So far, 125,000 Americans have died and 2.5 
million have been infected. It is completely reasonable for millions of 
Americans who are senior citizens, who have preexisting conditions, and 
who have particular vulnerabilities to be concerned about the risk they 
might take if they go to a polling place to vote.
  Today is primary day in Colorado, in Oklahoma, and in Utah, and we 
have seen in primary days just passed in Kentucky, in Georgia, and in 
Wisconsin, example after example where the State officials involved did 
not have the resources to hold elections where everyone could safely 
participate in a pandemic and hadn't worked out the plans.
  In Georgia, a State long known for voter suppression efforts over 
decades past, voters waited in line for hours and hours. I was inspired 
by their passion, their persistence to exercise their right to vote, 
and concerned, disheartened--even angered--by the fact that no 
preparations were made sufficient to meet the moment.
  In Wisconsin, dozens--more than 50--voters and poll workers tested 
positive for COVID-19 after exercising their right to vote, one of the 
most fundamental rights in our democracy
  Across the country we have heard from election officials who have 
struggled with the infrastructure that is ill-equipped to handle this 
pandemic.
  So, as my colleagues have already said, we should come together to 
advance this legislation, legislation I introduced with the Senator 
from Minnesota and the Senator from Oregon, which is a series of 
commonsense solutions to this obvious challenge.
  It would expand early, in-person voting; no-excuse, absentee vote-by-
mail; and reimburse States for the additional costs involved in 
administering an election during a pandemic. It would ensure American 
voters aren't faced with that untenable choice: risk their health to 
vote in person or stay home and not vote at all.
  Today is June 30. It is also the last day of the Delaware General 
Assembly, and like several other States, Delaware has passed 
legislation to provide for no-fault absentee voting in this pandemic, 
but they lack the resources to fully deliver on this solution.
  That is why, in the Appropriations subcommittee where I am the most 
senior Democrat, I have fought alongside my Democratic colleagues to 
advocate for money in this next COVID relief package--$3.6 billion--
which is what experts across the country say States need for printing 
ballots, for postage, for new high-speed scanners, for secure drop 
boxes, for personal protective equipment, and so much more.
  I appreciate that the Senator from Missouri who came to the floor to 
object did say that he would support additional funding, and I look 
forward to working with my colleague from Minnesota to help ensure that 
that is actually secured, but we have to do more than just provide 
financial resources.
  We have to provide this bill. We have to provide the legal framework. 
We have to provide a clear and confident path forward to voting.
  Let me close by reminding everyone in this Chamber that voting by 
mail, voting absentee under exigent circumstances, is nothing new. Our 
troops back in the Civil War voted by mail so that they could continue 
to participate in free and fair elections even as they were fighting 
for the very existence of this Republic.
  In every election, hundreds of thousands of American troops, 
diplomats, and development professionals safely and securely cast their 
votes from

[[Page S4007]]

around the world--election after election. There is no reason we can't 
do that now.
  So let me close by thanking my wonderful colleague from the State of 
Minnesota, who has been such a passionate, effective, and engaged 
advocate on this issue.
  I call on my Republican colleagues. Let's step up. Let's get this 
done. Let's ensure that the American people can safely exercise their 
right to vote this November.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for 
all the work he has done and his focus on what is going to be right in 
front of us, and that is additional help to States both with their 
needs--their medical needs and other economic needs--but also their 
democracy needs coming out of this pandemic.
  When Hawaii was hit at Pearl Harbor, we did not expect Hawaii to 
defend itself. When this pandemic hits, it doesn't just hit one State. 
It hits our entire country. That is why we argue for Federal Government 
involvement.
  With us--last but not least--is the other lead on this bill, and that 
is Senator Ron Wyden, who has been a longtime advocate, based in the 
forward-thinking State from which he comes, the State of Oregon, on 
vote-by-mail.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank you. I thank Senator Klobuchar. I 
thank Senator Coons, an absolutely invaluable member of this alliance, 
ensuring that we are going to be able to get the resources for this.
  My mother would say, if she looked around, ``Dear, you're running 
with the right crowd.'' It is a pleasure to be able to team up with 
both of you.
  I want to put this in some kind of context to begin because my 
colleagues have all done such a good job. I also got a chance to listen 
to the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner. He and I serve on the 
Intelligence Committee. I can't get into classified information, but 
certainly we are very much aware of some of the challenges to 
protecting the integrity of the votes of our citizens from a national 
security standpoint.
  I just want to start with a kind of basic, commonsense proposition. 
When you do something like making sure, in 2020, that citizens don't 
have to have a notary to vote, what you are doing is just common sense, 
and that is what expanded in-person voting is all about. That is what 
you do when you support voters with disabilities. That is what you do 
when you make it easier for communities where there are people of 
modest income, communities of color, to vote.
  It has been a pleasure to be able to work with Senator Klobuchar in 
particular, who is passionately committed to adding those kinds of 
priorities.
  I would only say that when you add these kinds of commonsense steps 
to enhance the ability of Americans to vote safely, only Donald Trump 
and Majority Leader McConnell could call it a liberal conspiracy. This 
is just basic common sense in government 101.
  I am particularly concerned because all of us know what is coming. In 
other words, we have been out here talking about these priorities now 
for months. We saw it in Wisconsin. We saw it in Georgia. We now know 
what is coming. If anything, we get additional news every day about 
what the challenge is.
  I don't know whether anybody has touched on it this afternoon, but 
just today, Dr. Tony Fauci said he would not be surprised to soon see 
100,000 new coronavirus cases a day.
  The Presiding Officer of the Senate is a physician, and he knows this 
well. He comes from a State that has faced a lot of challenges. Who are 
the people who are most vulnerable? It is seniors. It is people who are 
over the age of 60.
  What I would say to my colleagues is, when I introduced the first 
bill to vote by mail--and that was a full 20 years ago--to give 
everybody in America the chance to vote the Oregon way--they wouldn't 
have to vote the Oregon way, but they would all have a chance to vote 
by mail, a ballot. We knew that this would be a big breakthrough in 
terms of our special system of government. Our military has always 
looked to innovative ways to make sure that our courageous men and 
women in uniform would have a chance to be counted in every election. 
We knew 20 years ago that vote-by-mail would be an important innovation 
because we had been doing it for years and years in Oregon.
  All the arguments that have been thrown out recently--these arguments 
about fraud--our late secretary of state, Dennis Richardson, who was 
very conservative, before he passed--he passed shortly after Donald 
Trump took office--he wrote the President, Donald Trump, and said: This 
fraud issue is nonexistent in Oregon. Every election, there are 
virtually no instances, but a lot of people believe they got a chance 
to be counted, and they got a chance to do it in a way that was 
convenient for them.
  There are a lot of challenges, certainly, today with the coronavirus. 
What we do with vote-by-mail, as my colleagues have been talking about, 
is we need to make it easier to empower voters to vote the way they 
would like to be able to vote--safely and at home.
  Right now, voters are worried about infection. Sixty-six percent 
recently said they were concerned about going to polling places--and 
for good reason.
  We just had our primary in Oregon, and nobody had to worry about 
infection in the State of Oregon. We voted safely in the middle of a 
pandemic--no long lines, no interactions with older people and multiple 
poll workers, often putting several people at risk of the coronavirus, 
not just one person. Yes, if you have the possibility of touching a 
machine used by hundreds of people, there is certainly reason to be 
worried. Since 66 percent of poll workers are over the age of 60, many 
of them are staying home to avoid getting sick.
  I think my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber know at least 
some of what I have said this afternoon. I believe they know what is 
coming this fall because we have already seen a kind of snapshot of it 
over the last couple of months in terms of the challenge of voting 
during the era of the coronavirus.
  In 2016, we saw what happened when a foreign power tried to interfere 
with our election. The concerns of 2016 are now magnified in 2020. I 
put forward the Resilient Elections During Quarantines and Natural 
Disasters Act, and I would like to think we have been trying to get the 
facts out to Senators on both sides of the aisle for years now.
  It was a pleasure to team up with Senator Klobuchar on the Natural 
Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act and with Senator Coons, as he was our 
point person in securing the funds that are a prerequisite to doing 
this job right. In other words, you have to have funds, and you have to 
have the reforms.
  We don't really think that it is a revolutionary proposition that 
what you ought to do is everything possible to make sure that every 
eligible American can vote safely in a pandemic.
  Nobody I know in this Chamber is offering the proposition that the 
Federal Government should just run elections. What we are trying to do 
is give States and local governments clear guidance about the best way 
to keep elections running during the pandemic and the resources in 
order to use that guidance, as Senator Klobuchar and I have talked 
about--two sides of the same coin--not running the election but giving 
good facts and clear guidance about how to prevent the pandemic and the 
dollars to make it possible to carry it out.
  If a million members of the military, five U.S. States, and tens of 
millions of Americans across the country can vote by mail every 
election, then every voter ought to be able to vote by mail.
  It is now online, and I hope my colleagues will look at the wonderful 
discussions ``60 Minutes'' had about vote-by-mail in Oregon just a 
couple of days ago with our secretary of state, Bev Clarno. She, too, 
is a Republican. There are real bipartisan roots on this.
  I am the first U.S. Senator ever to be elected by mail. I am a 
Democrat. The second U.S. Senator to be elected by mail, our former 
colleague Gordon Smith, was a Republican. You see Democrats, and you 
see Republicans. You watch ``60 Minutes.'' You hear from our secretary 
of state, who is a longtime Republican. You heard what I had to say 
about the late Dennis Richardson, who I would venture to say was just 
about as conservative as any Member of the Republican caucus. We are 
going to keep doing everything we can to get the facts out and make 
sure that

[[Page S4008]]

people understand these arguments about, for example, fraud. We have to 
say, so people really see how strongly we feel about it.
  A few years ago, a poll worker tampered with two ballots. We put that 
person in jail for 90 days and fined him $13,000, and they were barred 
from ever working in an election again. That is the way to show you are 
serious about making sure you are sending a strong message about the 
integrity of every person's vote, addressing the safety questions, and 
avoiding the proliferation of insecure, overpriced electronic election 
equipment--something that the voting machine lobby has been pedaling 
for years and years. Those, again, are not partisan kinds of positions; 
they are just plain common sense.
  I realize that Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell are going to keep 
doing everything they can to block vote-by-mail on legislation, but I 
believe that when we really get into negotiating the nuts and bolts of 
the coronavirus package in the Senate when we come back, I believe, 
particularly because Senators are going to be home, they are going to 
hear from voters, and voters are going to say: Don't put our health at 
risk. Give us the ability to vote in a safe way.
  That is what we have tried to do.
  I will just say to my colleagues, there really is no plan B. The 
choice is either vote by mail or through the expanded options that we 
are offering in our bill, or huge numbers of Americans will not be able 
to vote at all.
  We are better than this, and it is time for Senators to look again.
  As I said, there is no plan B here, colleagues. The choice is to take 
advantage of our options for citizens to be able to vote safely, or 
huge numbers of Americans will not be able to vote at all.
  I think, to close for our side, the lead sponsor, the senior Democrat 
in the Rules Committee, may have something else to say. As a Senator 
who has worked on this, as I say, for two full decades, I knew that we 
were going to face challenges along the way. Back when we started, it 
was kind of a debate among political scientists. Now it is 
fundamentally a question of keeping our citizens safe as they exercise 
the franchise. I think it is very fitting that Senator Klobuchar close 
for our side
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Wyden for his 
longtime leadership on this issue. I want to thank all of my 
colleagues. I want to actually thank Mr. Blunt, who did object to our 
bill but is willing to work with us on the funding.
  As I said, to sum up, we would rather put ballots in the envelopes 
than voters in the hospital. It is that simple.


                 Nomination of Major General Jon Jensen

  Mr. President, I appreciate the kindness of my colleague from the 
great State of Nebraska.
  I am going to briefly address one matter, and that is to express my 
support for the nomination of MG Jon Jensen of Minnesota to become the 
Director of the Army National Guard.
  Major General Jensen has served in the Army National Guard for more 
than three decades. He currently serves as an adjunct general of the 
Minnesota National Guard--a position he has held since November of 
2017. As adjunct general, Major General Jensen oversees more than 
13,000 soldiers and air men and women in Minnesota.
  His record of service and extensive experience in Minnesota and 
across the world makes him an excellent choice to lead the men and 
women of the Army National Guard across the country.
  We are grateful for Major General Jensen's leadership and service and 
proud to see a fellow Minnesotan nominated to become the Director of 
the Army National Guard. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
his confirmation.
  Major General Jensen has led the Minnesota National Guard in 
unprecedented times, including in the State's response to the 
coronavirus pandemic. In recent months, our Guard members, as they have 
in so many States, have provided planning and logistics support and 
transportation assistance, while also helping to conduct coronavirus 
tests.
  Under Major General Jensen's leadership, the Minnesota National Guard 
has been critical in our response to natural disasters, including 
flooding in our State that caused significant challenges for so many 
farmers in Minnesota during last year's harvest.
  In addition to his work in our State, the major general has been a 
national leader in working with the National Guard in other States to 
expand partnerships with the Federal Government.
  He began his military career in 1982 as an enlisted combat medic, and 
in August 1989, was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. 
Army.
  He continued his training in Georgia, and his career eventually took 
him to assignments in Georgia, Kansas, and Iowa. But then he had major 
assignments in Italy and Bosnia, Herzegovina, Iraq, and in Kuwait.
  His outstanding service is demonstrated by the list of decorations 
and awards he has earned over his career, including the Legion of 
Merit, Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, and Army Commendation 
Medal.
  In addition to serving as adjutant general, Major General Jensen has 
held numerous leadership positions within the Guard, including as 
commander of the 34th Infantry Division, director of Joint Staff, and 
assistant adjutant general.
  I had the honor of attending the change of command ceremony where he 
became adjutant general of our Guard. Now I hope to have the honor of 
seeing him confirmed to help lead the brave citizen soldiers of the 
Army National Guard nationwide.
  I have no doubt that our Nation will benefit from his leadership and 
from his decades of experience and his commitment to guardsmen and 
their families, including supporting families through multiple 
deployments, as well as in my State.
  I think we know that dual role of the National Guard has been tested 
so much in recent decades, including their work, basically, fighting on 
the frontline over the last decade and then their work here at home 
through many natural disasters, as well as the current pandemic.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                                S. 4049

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2021.
  I want to start off by thanking the chairman and ranking member of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee. I am grateful for their hard work, 
their leadership in crafting this bill, conducting a productive markup, 
and managing the floor process. We came together on this committee 
during these difficult times, and we passed a strong bipartisan bill, 
one that supports our servicemembers and provides for the defense of 
this Nation.
  I have said it many times before: Our warfighters are our greatest 
asset. The brave men and women who serve deserve our utmost respect, 
support, and gratitude.
  This year's bill authorizes a 3-percent pay raise for all members of 
the uniformed service. It reauthorizes over 30 types of bonuses and 
special pays and increases incentive pay for healthcare professionals.
  The bill also prioritizes support for military families through 
childcare and spouse employment opportunities. We need to ensure that 
our warfighters can stay focused on executing their mission and 
maintaining readiness. This is only possible if they know their 
families, especially their spouses and children, are taken care of.
  As countries like Russia and China rapidly modernize, we face a 
growing need for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
capabilities despite having a limited fleet of resources.
  Over and over again, I have heard from combatant commanders who 
reiterate the need for ISR. They also note the significant shortfall in 
supply versus a demand the Department of Defense has called 
``insatiable.'' This is a problem I know well, as I am proud to have 
the honor of representing the Air Force's 55th Wing, the No. 1 provider 
of large fixed-wing ISR in the Nation.
  To continue enhancing the capabilities of the 55th Wing, this bill 
would authorize nearly $200 million in funding for the continued 
modernization and upgrading of the RC-135 aircraft. This bill ensures 
that the platform remains a capable part of the Air Force's ISR system 
for decades to come. The RC-135 is a core component at the Air Force's 
ISR system and will be for the foreseeable future.

[[Page S4009]]

  But as we enter newly contested environments, we need to think 
creatively about integrating platforms like the RC-135 into new ISR 
networks. I included language in this year's NDAA that would require an 
assessment of the overall ISR's shortfall based on combatant commander 
demand, with details about the planned integration of the RC-135 
aircraft into next-generation networks like ABMS.
  This provision would task the Department of Defense with exploring 
the conversion of retiring KC-135 aircraft into the highly sought after 
RC-135 to grow that ISR capability.
  Unfortunately, we also face a broader issue with the size and the age 
of our Nation's Air Force, which is why I included language encouraging 
growth to meet the Air Force We Need target of 386 operational 
squadrons.
  Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska Houses the Air Force's fleet of E-
4B aircraft, which serves as the National Airborne Operations Center 
and plays a key role in our nuclear command, control, and 
communications architecture. The NAOC provides a highly survivable 
platform from which to direct U.S. forces, execute emergency war 
orders, and coordinate actions by civil authorities.
  The E-4B fleet, which first entered service in 1974, is aging rapidly 
and sustainment efforts have grown increasingly difficult and costly. 
The path forward for recapitalizing this vital strategic capability 
remains unclear. So I included language in this bill that would 
encourage the swift recapitalization of this important capability
  Nebraska is also the proud home of the world-class University of 
Nebraska Medical Center, which is among the Nation's leading 
specialized medical care and biocontainment units. This made UNMC the 
logical choice to be the first U.S. location to receive the COVID-19 
patients for quarantine and testing. The first clinical trial of a drug 
to combat coronavirus was conducted there as well.
  COVID-19 has placed an exceptional strain on the Nation's healthcare 
infrastructure, and we need to address our limited capacity to respond 
to major events. For that reason, I championed language in the NDAA 
that would authorize $5 million to implement a pilot program on 
civilian and military partnerships to enhance the interoperability and 
medical surge capacity of the National Disaster Medical System. This 
program would improve future Federal responses to pandemics and to 
other threats while giving institutions with an established expertise 
in these areas, like UNMC, an opportunity to participate.
  Additionally, the Senate NDAA bill makes targeted investments to 
begin addressing the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, 
including $46 million for coronavirus vaccine research and production, 
and the bill encourages faster adoption of telehealth services.
  We are all aware of the increasing effort by China and Russia to 
expand their influence, which has underscored the need to work with our 
partners and allies around the world. Engagement, development, 
training, and education with partner military forces is crucial to 
successfully strengthening alliances and attracting new partners, and 
it is important that we cement new ties in places where we have a 
lighter presence.
  The State Partnership Program, a Department of Defense program that 
encourages cooperation between National Guard units and partner 
militaries, is an excellent example of this. To encourage its continued 
development, I included language in this year's NDAA highlighting the 
SPP's success in cultivating positive relationships with partner 
forces.
  Nebraska has two such partnerships: a shared one with the Czech 
Republic and a newly penned partnership with Rwanda.
  This mil-to-mil training program allows National Guard units to 
conduct exercises and education with developing nations, cultivating 
partnerships that are vital to our success around the world. I also 
serve as chair of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which oversees the 
Department's nuclear forces and the U.S. Strategic Command, or 
STRATCOM, which is located in my State of Nebraska.
  It also has jurisdiction over national security space and missile 
defense programs, as well as the Department of Energy's defense 
activities.
  Across the subcommittee's jurisdiction, we reduced funding for 
underperforming programs in order to better support the priorities of 
our war fighters.
  For example, my subcommittee authorized an additional $76.8 million 
to begin development of a land-based missile defense capability for 
Guam. Not only is this a top priority for the INDOPACOM commander, but 
it is the single largest new activity undertaken as part of the Pacific 
Deterrence Initiative.
  The subcommittee also authorized an increase of $120 million in order 
to accelerate the development of the space-based Hypersonic and 
Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor at the Missile Defense Agency. Despite 
repeated testimony from DOD witnesses about the significance of this 
program, year after year, budget requests fail to fully fund it. While 
I am proud of the subcommittee's work to keep this program moving 
forward, I hope that next year the Department will take the initiative 
and fully fund this essential program.
  To meet additional missile defense priorities, this bill also 
provides $128 million to increase procurement of SM-3 IIA missiles and 
an additional $162 million to continue the development of the Homeland 
Defense Radar-Hawaii, a key unfunded priority of the INDOPACOM 
commander.
  The bill also authorizes an increase of $319.6 million to procure an 
eighth THAAD battery. As threats continue to increase, the need for 
THAAD's unique defense capabilities continues to grow.
  Most importantly, this year's bill authorizes full funding for the 
continued modernization of our nuclear deterrent. This includes 
critical programs such as the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, which 
will replace our aging ballistic missile force, and the next-generation 
nuclear cruise missile, the long range standoff weapon.
  It also invests heavily in the modernization of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration's nuclear complex, a third of which dates to 
the Manhattan Project and early Cold War era.
  I would like to take a moment to remind my colleagues of why 
maintaining our modernization schedule is so very important. While 
still effective, our nuclear deterrent is aging. Every leg of our 
nuclear triad has been extended far beyond its originally planned 
service life, and we have reached a point where further life extensions 
are simply not possible. These systems must be replaced.
  To this end, the previous administration began the development of a 
number of programs to recapitalize our nuclear deterrent, including a 
new ICBM, a new submarine, and a new bomber. Yet these replacements are 
expected to be delivered just as the current systems are aging out, and 
as many STRATCOM Commanders have testified, there is no margin for 
error in this schedule.
  Take, for example, the Ohio-class submarines. Through life 
extensions, the submarines will be in service for 42 years--longer than 
any other submarine in our Navy's history. As the current STRATCOM 
Commander, ADM Charles Richard, who is a submariner by trade, 
eloquently explained during his confirmation hearing that it is simply 
not possible to keep them in service any longer.
  However, as a result of previous decisions to delay the development 
of the Ohio's replacement, these submarines will be retiring before the 
next generation--the Columbia class--is ready for service. Let me say 
that again. The submarines that form one-third of our nuclear triad 
will begin retiring before their replacements are ready.
  STRATCOM believes it can mitigate the risks associated with that 
schedule, but this reflects the high level of risk that has already 
been accepted in our planning. It also explains exactly why officials 
in both the Trump and the Obama administrations have repeatedly 
emphasized that there is no margin for additional delay.
  Admiral Richard testified earlier this year: ``I cannot overemphasize 
the need to modernize our nuclear forces and recapitalize the 
supporting infrastructure to ensure we can maintain this deterrent in 
the future.''
  This is why fully funding these programs and maintaining our current 
modernization schedule is so important. We must continue preparing to

[[Page S4010]]

meet and defeat the adversaries of tomorrow.
  In closing, I again stress that the Senate's NDAA bill gives our men 
and women in uniform the resources they need. More than this, it 
provides for their and their families' futures through much needed pay 
raises, employment opportunities, and other programs. This bill is good 
for the nuclear and strategic forces that protect our country. This 
bill is good for our Nation. This bill is the product of bipartisan 
consensus. Nearly all of my Republican and Democratic colleagues on the 
Committee on Armed Services voted for it.
  Let's provide for the defense of our Nation and the men and women of 
our Armed Forces by voting for the bill. I ask my colleagues to join me 
in supporting its swift passage.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. McSally). The Senator from Utah


                     June Medical Services v. Russo

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I come to the floor wanting to discuss a 
case called June Medical Services v. Russo. This was a decision 
announced by the Supreme Court of the United States yesterday.
  This is a decision that hasn't gotten as much attention as many cases 
that go before the Supreme Court. It is, nonetheless, a significant 
decision, and it is a decision that, I believe, is deeply flawed and 
betrays many of the legal and constitutional principles that the 
Supreme Court of the United States purports to apply and is supposed to 
be bound by as it decides cases and controversies properly brought 
before its jurisdiction.
  The June Medical Services case involved the constitutionality of a 
statute enacted by the Louisiana Legislature, known as Act 620. The 
legislation in question required any doctor performing abortions within 
Louisiana to hold active admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 
miles of the location of the abortion clinic in question. The Act then 
defined what it meant to have acting admitting privileges, and it did 
so in terms of a reference to the ability to admit a patient and to 
provide diagnostic and surgical services to such patient. It is 
understandable why the State of Louisiana or any State might want to 
consider adopting such legislation.
  I want to be very clear at the outset that this case did not involve 
any legislation prohibiting abortion. In fact, there is nothing about 
Act 620 that made abortions illegal in Louisiana nor is there anything 
about Act 620 that would have made it practically impossible or really 
difficult for people to obtain an abortion. That is not what it did. It 
simply acknowledged the fact that an abortion is a type of surgical 
medical procedure and, in taking into account the fact that it is a 
medical procedure, is sometimes fraught with medical peril that can 
sometimes result in people getting hurt and people having to go to the 
hospital and that it might be helpful in those circumstances to have 
the person who performed the procedure have admitting privileges at a 
hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic.
  The constitutionality of the law was challenged in a lawsuit brought 
by five abortion clinics and four abortion providers in Louisiana. Now, 
they challenged the law in Federal district court, and they did so 
before the act even took effect, arguing that it was unconstitutional 
because it imposed an undue burden on their patients' right to obtain 
abortions. The abortion clinics and the medical providers at issue--the 
doctors and the clinics that challenged it--were quite significantly 
not arguing that these were their own constitutional rights that were 
being impaired. They were, instead, arguing that they had standing, 
that they had the ability to stand in the shoes of those who were among 
their patients, those whom they served.
  So I would like to talk about three critical features of this 
decision and why I think the decision was wrong in all three respects.
  First, let's talk about this standing issue that I alluded to just a 
moment ago. The concept of standing is rooted in article III of the 
Constitution. Article III is the part of the Constitution that 
establishes the judicial branch and sets up the Supreme Court and such 
inferior courts as Congress might choose to create. Significantly, 
neither article III nor any other provision of the Constitution gives 
the courts the authority to make law, to decide policy, or even, for 
that matter, to announce what the law is or says or should say at any 
moment unless, of course, there is a case or a controversy before the 
court.
  What that means is that a court cannot issue an advisory opinion. In 
our Federal court system, the courts have the power to decide actual 
conflicts, disputes, cases, or controversies between one or more 
parties who happen to disagree as to the meaning of a particular 
provision of Federal statutory or constitutional law. Without that type 
of case or controversy, the court lacks jurisdiction. So, even though 
this isn't a concept that nonlawyers employ in day-to-day conversation, 
it is something that lawyers in America and judges, particularly 
Federal judges and lawyers who practice before Federal courts, are 
familiar with.
  The concept of standing acknowledges that, with very few exceptions 
not relevant in this context, a party may not sue on behalf of or in 
order to address an injury sustained by a third party. In order to have 
standing in Federal court, you have to have an injury in fact--that is 
concrete and particularized, that is sustained by the plaintiff, that 
is fairly traceable to the conduct of the defendant--and the conduct at 
issue must be capable of being remedied by a judicial order within the 
court's jurisdiction. Without those elements being present, you can't 
have standing. Without standing, you can't have a case or a 
controversy, and the court has no jurisdiction
  It is well established that, within the Federal court system, this 
standing inquiry is what we call part of the court's judiciary 
doctrine, meaning it is a threshold inquiry that determines 
jurisdiction. As a result, it can be raised at any moment by any party. 
It can be, and sometimes will be, addressed by the court acting sua 
sponte, meaning, regardless of whether any of the parties raises it. It 
cannot be waived. As a result, at any stage of the litigation--whether 
at the trial court, at the appellate court, or at the Supreme Court of 
the United States--it can be raised by any party or any member of the 
judiciary sitting in that case.
  It is significant that in this 5-to-4 ruling, in an oddly configured 
plurality opinion of four Justices--Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, 
and Sotomayor--being united in a single plurality opinion and joined by 
Chief Justice Roberts in a concurring opinion, they cobbled together a 
conclusion that it was just fine for the court to act in this 
circumstance, notwithstanding the fact that the doctors and the 
abortion clinics in this case were not even arguing that their own 
constitutional rights were being impaired. This is significant. This is 
stunning, in fact. They are asserting the constitutional rights and the 
alleged injuries of third parties.
  Now, in other circumstances, one might imagine a scenario in which 
you might have someone coming before the court, claiming to be the 
executor of somebody's estate or, perhaps, the legal guardian of a 
juvenile or of a person who had been deemed incapacitated. In those 
circumstances, that person has standing, but the standing belongs to 
the person suffering the injury. It is just allowed to be asserted by 
the third person standing in that person's place. That is not what we 
had here. Neither in the complaint nor in any of the moving papers did 
any of the plaintiffs argue--that is the clinics and the abortion 
providers in question--that its own constitutional rights were being 
impaired. They instead asserted impairment of the rights of third 
parties not before the court, of would-be patients whom they might 
have.
  The lack of standing in this case is apparent, and the lack of 
standing was glossed over by this cobbled-together combination of the 
four-member plurality and Chief Justice Roberts. The plurality glossed 
over it and, in part, suggested that the standing issue might not have 
mattered because, perhaps, it was not an argument that was properly 
raised before the district court. Yet any first-year law student in any 
American law school, let alone a Federal judge or a Supreme Court 
Justice, knows that standing isn't waivable. It is a threshold 
jurisdictional question, and, as such, it cannot

[[Page S4011]]

be waived. It is never waived. It is always a live, relevant, 
legitimate question, one that can be raised sua sponte by the Court 
itself.
  In his dissent, Justice Alito acknowledged this point and explained 
it well with the following words:

       Neither waiver nor stare decisis can justify this holding, 
     which clashes with our general rule on third-party standing. 
     And the idea that a regulated party can invoke the right of a 
     third party for the purpose of attacking legislation enacted 
     to protect the third party is stunning. Given the apparent 
     conflict of interest, that concept would be rejected out of 
     hand in a case not involving abortion.
  The conflict of interest to which Justice Alito is referring refers 
to the fact that you have got here, on the one hand, a State regulating 
a particular act--here, abortion providers, clinics, and physicians who 
perform abortions. That entity, like any other entity that is otherwise 
going to be regulated, has an interest in being not regulated.
  It makes it easier, perhaps cheaper, perhaps more lucrative for that 
entity, for those providers, to be in that business if they are less 
regulated. It makes it easier for them to do what they do and perhaps 
more profitable if they don't have to have admitting privileges at a 
hospital within 30 miles of the location of the abortion clinic.
  That is very different than the potential interest of their patients. 
Their patients have exactly the opposite interest. Their patients have 
the interest in making sure that the abortion provider provides for a 
safe, healthy environment in which adequate care can be provided to the 
patient, such that as complications arise, the doctor can take the 
patient to a hospital and, with those admitting privileges, can go 
about setting in order the course of treatment that needs to be 
pursued.
  And so Justice Alito's point was simply that, in this circumstance, 
you have a completely different set of interests, some that are being 
advanced by abortion providers, some that the State holds, and some 
that the patient holds. They are separate; they are distinct; and here, 
really, they are at odds with each other.
  So Justice Alito went on to explain:

       This case features a blatant conflict of interest between 
     an abortion provider and its patients. Like any other 
     regulated entity, an abortion provider has a financial 
     interest in avoiding burdensome regulations such as Act 620's 
     admitting privileges requirement. . . . Women seeking 
     abortions, on the other hand, have an interest in the 
     preservation of regulations that protect their health. The 
     conflict inherent in such a situation is glaring.

  So with this circumstance, the plaintiffs did not have standing. They 
didn't even assert the prerogative of asserting the rights of 
themselves. They didn't claim that they themselves had injuries that 
were constitutionally cognizable in court.
  They instead said that they were asserting them on behalf of an 
injury that would be suffered, and had not yet arisen, on the part of 
their patients, and that is a problem.
  So the Supreme Court, as far as I can tell, based on the time that I 
have spent reviewing the decision, the Supreme Court abandoned its 
ordinary standards and applied a different standard here so as to make 
it easier for this group of plaintiffs to raise a constitutional 
challenge.
  Madam President, I see the majority leader has entered the Chamber, 
and I ask unanimous consent for permission to be able to continue my 
remarks after the majority leader has conducted his business, as if 
without interruption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I thank my friend from Utah. I will 
be brief.

                          ____________________