[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 121 (Wednesday, July 1, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4084-S4102]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 4049, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read the following:
A bill (S. 4049) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2021 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Inhofe amendment No. 2301, in the nature of a substitute.
McConnell (for Portman) amendment No. 2080 (to amendment
No. 2301), to require an element in annual reports on cyber
science and technology activities on work with academic
consortia on high priority cybersecurity research activities
in Department of Defense capabilities.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
[[Page S4085]]
American Workforce Rescue Act
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, this morning, I have come to the floor
with Senators Wyden and Bennet to talk about a really bold new idea to
extend enhanced unemployment assistance for as long as economic
conditions in the country warrant it. I will speak about that
legislation more in a moment, but first, two other issues.
S. 4049
Madam President, first, last night President Trump threatened to veto
the National Defense Authorization Act--the bill on the floor this
week--because it contains a provision to rename military bases named
after Confederate generals.
Let me make a prediction. First, that provision will not change in
this bill as it moves through the House and Senate. Second, let me
predict that President Trump will not veto a bill that contains pay
raises for our troops and crucial support for our military. This is
nothing but typical bluster from President Trump. The NDAA will pass,
and we will scrub from our military bases the names of men who fought
for the Confederacy and took up arms against our country.
Coronavirus
Madam President, on a second matter, before I get to the main topic
of this morning, all week, Democrats have been trying to force action
on the Senate floor to make progress on crucial issues related to the
COVID-19 pandemic. As Senate Republicans continue to mindlessly delay
the next round of COVID-19 relief, we have tried day after day to jolt
the Senate into action. Last night, we made notable progress.
In the late hours of last evening, we were able to pass a monthlong
extension of the Payment Protection Program, whose loan authority
expired at midnight with over $130 billion left in the program. We had
to force our Republican colleagues to act on this very simple and
noncontroversial extension--a date change--to help small businesses
across America, particularly underserved businesses, minority-owned
businesses that had trouble accessing the PPP program in its early
days.
Throughout the day, we heard, to our surprise, that our Republican
friends might block the legislation, but when the time came, Senator
Cardin's consent request was agreed to. It certainly is something to
celebrate, but I would have hoped that our two parties could have
worked this out before last night as a small part of much broader
legislation to address the many challenges posed by COVID-19 rather
than a consent request forcing the Republicans to act.
But Senate Republicans, unfortunately, seem dead-set on delaying
almost any action on COVID-19 until after July, after they have had
time, in the words of Leader McConnell, ``to assess the conditions in
the country.'' The obstruction is deeply regrettable and impossible--
impossible--to explain.
We have other deadlines before us, not just the PPP. Today is July 1.
With the first of the month comes a new rent payment for millions of
American families who have lost their jobs through no fault of their
own. Senate Democrats, led by Ranking Member Sherrod Brown, are going
to ask the Senate to pass rental assistance and an extension on the
moratorium on evictions. Will Senate Republicans agree to our request
or leave millions of renters out in the cold?
I would say to my Republican friends, let the extension of the PPP
program be a metaphor. Democrats are going to keep pressing for Senate
action on COVID-19-related issues. Let the Republican response be quick
and generous, not stingy and halting. Senate Republicans are going to
have to respond one way or the other and either support urgent and
necessary pieces of legislation or explain to their constituents why
they are blocking them. It would be far better to pass these measures
earlier rather than later and be more generous rather than stingy
(The remarks of Mr. Schumer, Mr. Wyden and Mr. Bennet pertaining to
the introduction of S. 4143 are printed in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 6
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning on an
issue that is topical. It is an issue that, over the last several days,
has become a national centerpiece of conversation.
It reflects a decision of just a few days ago by the Supreme Court
that rejected President Trump's efforts to repeal deportation
protections for Dreamers--young immigrants who came to the United
States as children. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the
Court held that the President's decision to rescind DACA, the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, was ``arbitrary and
capricious.''
It was 10 years ago that I joined with Republican Senator Dick Lugar,
of Indiana, on a bipartisan basis, to call on President Obama and beg
him to use his legal authority to protect Dreamers from deportation.
President Obama responded by creating the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals Program, known as DACA. It provided for Dreamers temporary
protection from deportation--2 years at a time--if they registered with
the government, paid substantial fees, and passed criminal and national
security background checks. More than 800,000 Dreamers came forward and
received DACA protection.
DACA unleashed the full potential of these Dreamers, who are
contributing to our Nation in a variety of ways--as soldiers, as
teachers, as nurses, as small business owners. More than 200,000 DACA
recipients are currently ``essential critical infrastructure workers.''
That is not my term. It is the way President Trump's Department of
Homeland Security describes the work of these DACA recipients now--
200,000 of them ``essential critical infrastructure workers.'' Among
those DACA recipients, 41,700 of them are in the healthcare industry.
This includes doctors, intensive care nurses, paramedics, and
respiratory therapists. They are the healthcare heroes we salute, and
at the same time, they are the DACA recipients this President loathes.
On September 5, 2017, President Trump repealed DACA. Hundreds of
thousands of Dreamers faced losing their work permits and faced being
deported to countries many of them barely remembered, if they
remembered at all. Thankfully, the Supreme Court stepped in and
rejected that strategy by President Trump.
What was the President's reaction?
To no surprise, the President responded by attacking the Court and
threatening to try to repeal DACA, even again, in the closing months of
his first term.
Congress must step in immediately.
After that Supreme Court decision, President Trump tweeted, ``I have
wanted to take care of DACA recipients better than the Do Nothing
Democrats, but for two years they refused to negotiate.''
Here is the reality. The President has rejected numerous bipartisan
proposals to deal with DACA and the Dreamers.
May I be specific?
On February 15, 2018, the Senate considered bipartisan legislation
that was offered by Republican Senator Mike Rounds and Independent
Senator Angus King--a bipartisan measure. The bill, which included a
path to citizenship for Dreamers, was supported by a bipartisan
majority of the Senate. Why did it fail to reach 60 votes? Because
President Trump openly opposed it. That is why. He said: I have a
better idea.
On the same day that the Senate voted on the President's immigration
proposal, we found his so-called ``better idea'' failed by a bipartisan
supermajority of 39 to 60.
On June 4, 2019, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6--on June
4, 2019, which was more than a year ago. H.R. 6, the Dream and Promise
Act, is legislation that would give Dreamers a path to citizenship, and
it passed the House with a strong bipartisan vote.
The Dream and Promise Act has been pending in the Senate for more
than a year. I have come to the floor, day after day, and heard the
Republican leader, Senator McConnell, bemoaning the fact that we are so
busy here in the Senate and that the House just isn't doing its work.
Yet the House has sent some 400 pieces of legislation to Senator
McConnell's desk--90 percent of it bipartisan. He refuses to consider
it. He refuses to bring it to this empty
[[Page S4086]]
Senate floor so that we can do our work. One of those measures, sadly,
is the Dream and Promise Act--the bill that would solve at least part
of the immigration challenge we now face in America. Last week, I sent
a letter, signed by all 47 Democratic Senators, calling on Senator
McConnell to immediately schedule a vote after the Supreme Court
decision. As of today, the Senator has not replied.
Over the years, I have decided that the only way to tell the story of
the Dreamers and the story of DACA is to introduce them here in the
Senate. I have asked them to come forward, if they wish, provide me
with photographs, and let me tell their stories. This is the 124th
story I am going to tell. It is the story of a remarkable young woman
named Cinthya Ramirez.
Cinthya Ramirez came to the United States from Mexico at the age of
4. She grew up in Nashville, TN. She wrote me a letter. Here is what
she wrote about growing up:
Moving to the United States gave me the gift of education.
I learned English by the first grade, and that is when I
learned that I loved school and I loved learning.
While in high school, Cinthya was on the track team and was a student
council representative and a great student. She graduated at the top of
her high school class with the highest honors. Cinthya went to Lipscomb
University, which is a private Christian college in Nashville, and she
graduated with a nursing degree. Today, thanks to DACA, Cinthya works
as a cardiac registered nurse at Vanderbilt University Medical Center--
the largest hospital in Nashville, TN. Cinthya is on the frontline of
the COVID-19 pandemic.
Here is what she writes about this experience:
I am a very spiritual person, and I pray a lot. I remind
myself that this is the job that I was meant to have. If the
time comes for patients to die and they cannot have their
families with them, we have to be there for them.
Cinthya's greatest fear is that of bringing the coronavirus home to
her family when she comes home after her nursing shifts at the
hospital.
Here is what she writes:
I take every precaution before entering the house. I take
off my clothes, clean my phone, go straight to the shower.
The rest is in the hands of God.
I thank Cinthya Ramirez--a DACA recipient--for her service. She is an
immigrant healthcare hero. She is a DACA healthcare hero. She is
putting herself and her family at risk to save the lives of others. She
should also not have to wake up every morning in fear that actions
taken by the Trump administration will lead to her being deported back
to a country she can barely, if at all, remember.
This is a classic example of this debate and what it is about--and to
think that, in a year, we have not even taken up this issue that was
sent to us by the House while it winds its way through our judicial
process all the way to the highest Court in the land, where the ruling
was in favor of Cinthya and the DACA recipients who have this
protection.
In that year, did we step forward in the U.S. Senate--the so-called
greatest deliberative body on Earth--to even debate the bill that
passed the House of Representatives? No. No, there was no time for
that. As you can see, we are so busy here on the floor of the U.S.
Senate.
There is so much more that we could do here. Shouldn't we start with
the highest priority--protecting Americans in the midst of this
pandemic?
This woman, Cinthya Ramirez--undocumented, protected by DACA--risks
her life every single day because of this pandemic. Can we risk
ourselves politically for a minute in the Senate and actually take up a
measure that could have a direct impact on the lives of the 800,000
DACA recipients and the thousands of others who could have applied for
that protection during the months that we have debated this in court?
Sadly, we have been unable to do that, and it is all because of a
decision being made by the President of the United States and by the
Republican majority leader, and it is a decision which needs to be
addressed directly.
In a few moments, I am going to offer a unanimous consent request,
when it comes to moving this bill, that was sent over by the House of
Representatives more than a year ago. I am really going to call the
bluff of this President, who asks: Why doesn't Congress act? Why don't
you come up with a bipartisan proposal?
Mr. President, here is our chance. Here is an opportunity.
We have a bill that has been sitting here for a year that would
address Cinthya Ramirez's future and the future of thousands of others.
The question is whether or not the Members on the other side of the
aisle, on the Republican side of the aisle, will at least let us
address this issue now.
Give us an opportunity to bring before the U.S. Senate a measure
which is no surprise, nothing revolutionary or new. It is a measure we
have considered in various forms over the last 20 years, but it is a
measure that would address this issue and do it in a thoughtful way.
This is an opportunity which we should seize. Wouldn't it be
remarkable, maybe a headliner, if the Senate actually did something--if
we actually took an issue of the day that affected real people, real
lives, in the middle of this coronavirus epidemic and actually decided
that this young woman and thousands like her were worth the effort
I think America would be shocked that this U.S. Senate responded that
way, and don't tell me we have better things to do. I am all for doing
the military authorization bill. We can get that done and be back in 2
weeks and take this up immediately. We know the bill is here. We know
that the bill is prepared and covers the areas that would protect this
young lady and so many others and give them a future in the United
States of America. At this point, it is really up to us.
Now, there may be an objection when I make this unanimous consent
request. Listen carefully to the objection. It has nothing to do with
resolving the issue before us--the issue of the future of this young
woman and thousands of others just like her.
But we are in a position at this moment where we have to act. I am
awaiting the arrival of a Republican Member, who I hope is on the way,
and so at this point I am going to suspend and yield the floor with the
hopes that we can return to another colleague coming to the floor
momentarily.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I am here to urge my colleagues on the
Republican side not to object--follow last night's example and allow
this simple, humane, and good-for-our-economy amendment to go forward.
First, I want to salute Senator Durbin. There has been no voice--no
voice of any elected official whom I know who has had a stronger,
longer, and more passionate defense of the DACA kids, many of whom are
now adults.
And he has pricked the conscience of the Nation so that now the DACA
kids and their families are, really, by most Americans respected and by
many Americans just loved. I am one of those in the latter category. I
love these kids and their families.
I have watched them, on the frontlines during the coronavirus crisis
in New York, risk their lives, even though they are not allowed to be
full Americans, to help.
Now we have an opportunity here to simply say: Stop harassing them.
Let them do their jobs. Let them live their lives. Let them be with
their families here in America so they can help us in our economy
recover from COVID, as they have been doing, without looking over their
shoulder and worrying about being deported or having one of their
family members being deported every 5 minutes.
It is such an important amendment. It is so good for the country. The
idea that immigrants are bad for America, that DACA kids are bad for
America, is a regressive, nativist, and often bigoted idea that some
use for political purposes, but nothing, nothing, nothing could be
further from the truth.
So I urge my colleagues not to object to Senator Durbin's fine
amendment to help America live up to its ideals and
[[Page S4087]]
its dreams. That lady in the harbor in the city in which I live--``Give
me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe
free''--that has been part of the American fabric for centuries.
This is a chance to bring us back to that fabric, that wonderful
fabric that has been so good for our country for those centuries.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague and friend
Senator Schumer. We have been fighting this battle for a long time,
Senator.
Eight of us who came, four Democrats and four Republicans, put
together a comprehensive immigration reform bill which should have
passed 7 years ago--68 votes on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It was a
bipartisan measure, which we joined with Senator McCain to put together
to bring to the floor.
I thank you for your heartfelt comments.
I am going to speak a little longer and make a unanimous consent
request.
This measure I am asking for unanimous consent on, the American Dream
and Promise Act, was introduced by Representative Lucille Roybal-
Allard, Democrat of California, on March 12, 2019, with 202 original
cosponsors.
It would provide Dreamers, temporary protected status recipients, and
individuals with deferred enforcement departure with protection from
deportation and an opportunity to obtain permanent legal status in the
United States if they meet certain requirements.
It passed the House of Representatives 237 to 187--7 Republicans
joined the 230 Democrats who were present to support the legislation.
Protections in the American Dream and Promise Act would allow nearly
700,000 DACA recipients, as well as another 1.6 million eligible
Dreamers brought to the United States as children to stay in our
country legally.
The bill's protections would also allow over 300,000 temporary
protected status holders and 3,600 individuals that I described earlier
with the same opportunity.
It would create a conditional permanent resident status valid for up
to 10 years that would protect Dreamers, including DACA, from
deportation and allow them to work legally in the United States.
Cinthya Ramirez could continue working as a nurse long after this
pandemic is gone.
To qualify for this, the Dreamers would need to meet requirements.
They must have come to the United States before the age of 18--she came
at the age of 4--and continuously lived here for at least 4 years.
They must demonstrate they have been admitted to an institution of
higher education, earned a high school diploma or equivalent, or are
currently in the process of doing that. She is a graduate of Lipscomb
University with a degree in nursing.
They must pass government and background security checks, submit
biometric and biographic data, demonstrate good character with no
felonies, misdemeanor offenses of domestic violence, or multiple
misdemeanor convictions, and they must register for the Selective
Service, if applicable--she has already met all these standards by the
examination she has been put through for DACA--and, of course, pay
their application fee.
DACA recipients and other DACA-eligible Dreamers who still meet the
requirements needed to obtain DACA would automatically qualify for
conditional permanent resident status.
When the President ended DACA in September of 2017, we stopped
accepting applications from those who were eligible. Now these young
people would have the chance, if they meet the requirements and the
test that is required of them.
They must complete one of three tracks: graduate from college or
university or complete at least 2 years of a bachelor's or higher
degree program in the United States; complete at least 2 years of
honorable military service or have worked for a period totaling at
least 3 years while having valid employment authorization; maintain
continuous residence in the country; demonstrate an ability to read,
write, speak English; understand American history, principles, and form
of government.
It is a high standard, but it is one they are prepared to meet and
they should meet to become part of America's future.
How important are they? Well, they are extremely important in every
single State. We know that there are some 780,000 DACA recipients
across the United States. There are 109,000 of them in the State of
Texas--109,000. The average age of arrival for them is 7. They came
here as kids. Their annual tax contributions are in the millions. I
could read the numbers.
In the State of Texas, there are 30,000 of these DACA recipients who
have been characterized by the Trump administration as essential
workers--30,000--4,300 DACA healthcare workers in the State of Texas.
The States of Texas, Arizona, California, Florida, and others are
going through a resurgence of infection and death from this pandemic.
These DACA young people--many of them are on the frontline fighting
this disease, as Cinthya Rameriz is in Tennessee.
The notion that we want them to leave now--4,300 leave Texas now--
healthcare workers? Unimaginable. It makes no sense.
It is time for us to do something. At a minimum, for goodness' sake,
in this empty Chamber, can we come together and debate this issue?
The President has challenged us to do it. Let's do it--not be afraid
of it. Put it through an amendment process on the floor. I have lived
through that before. It actually would resemble the U.S. Senate, which
many people remember from the history books, where people actually came
to deliberate and vote on amendments. That is all we are asking for.
Bring this under unanimous consent to the floor. Let's do it. The
President has challenged us.
I am going to make a unanimous consent request. I see the Senator
from Texas is on the floor here, and I want to make sure I get the
right copy. Here it is.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 112, H.R. 6, the American
Dream and Promise Act; further, that the bill be considered read a
third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be considered made
and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
You know, someone watching this at home might think that Senate
Democrats want to actually enact amnesty for the so-called DACA
recipients. Of course, they could have done so earlier.
President Trump offered Senate Democrats a deal that would have
granted permanent amnesty for all the DACA recipients, and the
Democrats turned it down. They didn't want the deal. They hoped,
instead, to have an issue in November.
You know, we are right now in a time of crisis in our country. We
have a global pandemic, and we have 44 million Americans out of work.
This is, on the economic side, the greatest crisis our country has seen
since the Great Depression.
Yet what we are seeing in the Senate is a continuation of something
we have seen for several years, which is that today's Democratic Party
doesn't value working men and women--American working men and women.
Last week, we saw a decision from the Supreme Court of the United
States on amnesty. It was a particularly disgraceful opinion.
Unfortunately, it was authored by Chief Justice Roberts; it was joined
by the four liberals; and it concerned President Obama's illegal
amnesty.
DACA, when it was issued, was illegal. Actually, for years, President
Obama admitted that. When activists asked him: Will you decree amnesty
unilaterally, as an executive, he told them over and over again: I
can't do that. I am bound by Federal immigration laws. I am not a King.
I am not an Emperor. That is what President Obama said repeatedly.
But then as the election approached, I guess they reassessed and
decided that being a King or Emperor sounded pretty good, and so DACA,
the day it was issued, was directly contrary to law.
[[Page S4088]]
Federal immigration law says in the statute books that if you are
here illegally, it is illegal for you to stay, to get work permits, and
the Obama administration ignored Federal immigration law and simply
printed what were called work authorizations.
My friend from Illinois has a picture of a lovely young lady whom he
has spoken about.
What he doesn't have a picture of is what happened after Executive
amnesty was granted for those who came illegally as kids, which is that
the number of unaccompanied children skyrocketed.
In the State of Texas I have been down to the border many, many
times. I have visited with the Border Patrol many, many times. You
know, when you go online, you see cages with children in them. What
many of the people online don't tell you is that it was the Barack
Obama administration that built those cages, and it was Executive
amnesty that resulted in tens of thousands of little boys and little
girls being sent alone with violent drug traffickers, with coyotes. Far
too many of those kids were physically assaulted and sexually
assaulted. You are not helping children by incentivizing little boys
and little girls being in the hands of violent traffickers. That is not
humane. I have seen child after child after child abused by this
system, and every time the Democrats offer more amnesty, the
predictable result is that more children are going to be physically and
sexually assaulted. Amnesty is wrong.
It is also the wrong priority of today's Democratic Party. Their
priority is on people here illegally and not on American workers, not
on keeping American workers safe.
What we should be doing--and in just a moment, I am going to ask
unanimous consent for this body to take up and pass Kate's Law. I am
the author of Kate's Law in the Senate. Kate's Law is named for Kate
Steinle, a beautiful young woman in California who was murdered on a
California pier by an illegal immigrant who had come into this country
illegally over and over and over again. He had multiple violent
criminal convictions over and over and over again, but our revolving-
door system kept letting him out.
As Kate Steinle died on that California pier, her father held his
daughter in his arms, and her last words were ``Daddy, please help
me.''
I have had the opportunity to visit with Kate Steinle's family. What
happened to her was wrong. It shouldn't happen, and the reason it
happens is that our broken system keeps letting go violent criminal
illegal aliens. What does Kate's Law provide? Commonsense legislation
that says aggravated felons--people with serious felony convictions--
who repeatedly enter the country illegally face a mandatory minimum
prison sentence; in other words, we are not going to let them out and
allow them out to commit murders, rapes, and assaults. We are not going
to let them out to abuse and threaten children.
Kate's Law is overwhelmingly bipartisan common sense. If you go into
the great State of Illinois and ask the voters of Illinois ``Does
Kate's Law make sense?'' overwhelmingly, they say yes. That is true in
every State in the country.
By the way, it is true of voters who aren't just Republicans. It is
true of Democrats, and it is true of Independents. It is true of
everyone except the 47 elected Democrats in this Chamber and their
colleagues in the House of Representatives because the reason Kate's
Law is not the law is that every time I have tried to bring it up, the
Democrats have objected to it.
If Kate's Law had been on the books, Kate Steinle would still be
alive because the violent criminal who kept coming in over and over and
over again illegally would have been in jail instead of murdering that
young woman.
Amnesty is wrong. Illegal Executive amnesty is wrong, and we need to
have as our first priority protecting the American workers and keeping
the American people safe.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it my understanding that the Senator
from Texas was going to offer a consent request.
Mr. CRUZ. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. I think this is the moment to do it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Unanimous Consent Request--Kate's Law
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Kate's Law, which is at the
desk.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time
and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and
laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, listen carefully to what we just heard
from the Senator from Texas. First he talked about amnesty. Amnesty as
I understand it is a blanket forgiveness for the commission of a crime.
Cinthya Ramirez has DACA--the DACA protection that I described--2
years at a time. She was brought here to the United States from Mexico
at the age of 4. She has paid her fee, has gone through her background
check, and receives 2-year protections to continue in this country.
According to the Senator from Texas, that is amnesty for a crime--
amnesty for a criminal. It is certainly not that.
This young woman has been as open with our government as she could
possibly be, and for it she has received 2 years at a time to build a
life, and what a life she has built. Undocumented and uncertain of her
future, a person who is doomed by the Trump administration's policy
finishes her medical education in nursing school at Lipscomb
University, a Christian college in Nashville, and works at one of the
best hospitals in the whole region, saving the lives of people who are
facing COVID-19, and in the eyes of the Senator from Texas, she is just
another criminal looking for amnesty. Really? I am sorry, that doesn't
add up. It doesn't add up at all
To say today that because we are seeking help on DACA, Democrats do
not value American workers--another statement made by the Senator from
Texas--may I remind the Senator that all of the people we are talking
about in the DACA Program are currently in the United States legally
working because of DACA? It is not as if they are taking jobs away by
coming into this country and displacing others. Many of them are
unemployed because of the economy too. She is doing work people are
afraid to do, exposing herself to the coronavirus every single day.
You heard the routine she goes through when she comes home from work:
taking off her clothing, rushing into a shower, washing off her cell
phone, cleaning it before she sees her family. This is a person who is
a criminal? She is a criminal for what she does, Cinthya Ramirez--
really? I don't understand the thinking.
To call the decision last week--the week before--before the Supreme
Court disgraceful is to say that she should have no chance. She should
be gone. What has she got to offer to the United States of America, to
the State of Tennessee, to our future? She has a lot to offer, and most
Americans, even an overwhelming majority of Republicans, get that part
of it.
Now the Senator comes before us today with a consistent record on
Dreamers. Every moment that he has been in the U.S. Senate, whenever he
has been given a chance--whenever--to help the Dreamers or to help
DACA, the junior Senator from Texas has voted no, time and time and
time again. He is consistent. Bless him for his consistency.
Today he is not even offering an alternative that would give this
woman a chance--no alternative to the Dream and Promise Act. Instead he
offers his own bill, which has nothing whatsoever to do with DACA and
the Dreamers. The Cruz bill would increase penalties for immigration
offenses, but anyone who commits any of the offenses that have been
described by the Senator from Texas is already ineligible under DACA--
ineligible. DACA requires applicants to clear criminal and national
security background checks. Cinthya Ramirez has done that. To say that
she is even close to committing a crime is an outrage.
[[Page S4089]]
Let's be clear. The junior Senator from Texas is in the majority in
the U.S. Senate. If he were serious about advancing his bill, he could
ask the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a committee
vote on the bill. The Senator from Texas serves on that committee. Then
he could ask the majority leader to schedule a floor vote. But he
hasn't done that. This bill that he brings to the floor today he has
not even introduced as a bill in this session of Congress.
In this session of Congress, with the Republicans in the majority,
the immigration subcommittee chaired by the other Senator of Texas has
held one hearing. The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted on one
immigration bill. There has not been a single vote on an immigration
bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
Clearly, the Senator from Texas has no intention of trying to advance
this bill that he passionately defended on the floor. He is offering it
today to try to muddy the waters and somehow tie up this wonderful
young nurse in Tennessee with a horrible crime that was committed in
California. She had nothing to do with it. There is nothing in her life
that is even close to that crime, and to put that as the alternative to
DACA and the Dream Act is fundamentally and totally unfair.
As long as I am in the Senate, I will come to the floor of the Senate
to advocate for Cinthya Ramirez and all of the Dreamers. What an
American tragedy it would be to deport this brave and talented young
nurse who is saving lives in the midst of this pandemic.
America is better than that. We must ensure that Cinthya and hundreds
of thousands of others in our essential workforce are not forced to
stop working. We need them now more than ever, and we must give them
the chance they desire to let them become citizens of the United
States.
Madam President, I object to the unanimous consent request by the
Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Coronavirus
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, COVID-19 has taken a wrecking ball to our
Nation's health and economy. No corner of the United States has been
spared.
Communities of color are being hit the hardest. We here in Congress
must focus our work on helping these communities. We must take on the
longstanding systemic reasons that these communities entering this
crisis are entering at a greater risk. We must enact real reform so
that the next time the next pandemic or economic downturn hits, it is
not these same communities that once again bear the brunt of the
disaster.
Today, I want to focus our attention on American Indian and Alaska
Native communities--communities where infection and mortality rates are
much higher than the overall U.S. population and communities that can't
escape the economic hardships this pandemic has caused.
We already knew that pandemics like this take an awful toll on Native
communities. This was true 100 years ago during the 1918 flu pandemic
when Native Americans died at four times the rate of the rest of the
country. This was true a decade ago during the 2019 H1N1 outbreak when
Native Americans died at the same high rates.
It is unforgivable that the administration was not better prepared.
The underlying reasons that Native peoples--whether living on Tribal
lands, in urban settings, or elsewhere--are at risk are multifaceted.
They are all rooted in historic systemic injustice.
First and foremost, many Native Americans do not have ready access to
quality healthcare, despite the Federal Government's trust and treaty
obligations to provide it--trust and treaty obligations taken on by
this government in exchange for millions of acres of land and countless
lives lost.
On the large, rural reservations and in remote Alaskan Native
villages, the nearest healthcare facility might be hours away, and when
you get there, if you can get there, there often aren't enough doctors
or nurses or hospital beds.
These logistical barriers are compounded by the chronic, historic
underfunding of the Indian Health Service, which many of us have fought
for years to correct. While we have made progress, the IHS budget still
only covers an estimated 16 percent of the need.
As a result of centuries of discriminatory land, agricultural, and
environmental policies, Native communities also face the highest rates
of underlying conditions, like diabetes, heart and lung disease,
asthma, and obesity, that result in worse COVID-19 outcomes.
Battles over water rights and underinvestment in Tribal
infrastructure have compounded the problems. We all know that washing
our hands is a critical measure to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Yet
Tribal communities are 3.7 times more likely to lack complete indoor
plumbing than other U.S. households. On the Navajo Nation, which is
confronting one of the worse coronavirus outbreaks in the Nation, 18
percent of households don't have complete indoor plumbing. So, again,
it is no surprise that researchers have already found that COVID-19
cases are more likely to occur in Tribal communities, with a higher
proportion of homes lacking indoor plumbing.
We also know that social distancing is key to preventing the spread
of the virus. Yet almost one in six Native households is overcrowded,
making social distancing not just difficult but physically impossible
for many families.
All these institutional barriers combine to create a perfect storm.
These barriers aren't the result of chance; they are the result of
policy. It is these institutional barriers that we must acknowledge and
finally address so that this pandemic is not one more example of the
failure of the United States to meet our obligations. This time must be
different. We must meet our responsibilities and help build a more just
and equitable society
Throughout this crisis, Native communities have fought back. They are
resilient. They have fought back hard. For example, in my home State of
New Mexico and in Arizona and Utah, the Navajo Nation has imposed
strict curfews to prevent the spread. They have ramped up testing
despite the complete lack of testing supplies in the beginning, and
they have now, as of today, tested about 25 percent of their
population, compared to 10 percent nationally.
Tribal responses to the pandemic have been repeatedly hamstrung by
this administration and congressional inaction. As vice chair of the
Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I fought hard for funding targeted for
Tribes. When the administration offered nothing for Tribes, we secured
over $10 billion in the CARES Act. When the administration fumbled
distribution of Tribal funding, missing the statutory deadline for
distribution by almost 2 months, Congress and the Tribes pushed back.
Because Tribes are in crisis, days matter. It took a lawsuit and a
Federal court order for Tribes to get their share of the $8 billion set
aside for them under the CARES Act.
Today, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee will hold an oversight
hearing on implementation of Federal programs to support Tribal COVID-
19 prevention, containment, and response efforts. Tribal witnesses will
testify that policies and practices at FEMA, the CDC, HRSA, and a
number of other Federal Agencies have made Tribal access to Federal
COVID-19 resources much harder.
Whether it is denying Tribes access to coronavirus surveillance data,
creating a confusing, Byzantine bureaucracy for requesting emergency
medical supplies, or delaying access to grant funds, this
administration continually makes decisions that disadvantage Native
communities, decisions that threaten Native lives and prolong this
country's legacy of systemic injustice.
The administration must do better, and Congress must do much more.
Each day we fail to act to advance policies to address the disparities
faced by Indian Country is a day we fail to uphold our oath of office.
The Republican Senate majority has delayed far too
[[Page S4090]]
long. Infections are on the rise. The United States has surpassed every
other nation in the world in the spread and death and destruction of
this virus.
Now, 20 million Americans are out of work, which is the highest
unemployment level since the Great Depression. State and local and
Tribal governments and healthcare systems across the Nation are
shuttering essential services and furloughing essential workers. None
of this should come as news to the Republican majority.
Inaction in the face of this disaster is unconscionable. This body
must get down to the business that we are here for and we are elected
to do. It is long past time we pass another COVID-19 relief package.
Our next package must include targeted funding and programs for Native
communities and Tribes. We must infuse IHS with additional funding for
Tribal healthcare and ensure it has parity in accessing Federal
programs. We must provide Tribal governments with the resources they
need to keep their communities up and running safely by providing $20
billion in additional targeted funding within the Treasury's
Coronavirus Relief Fund.
The Senate should pass bills I have introduced that have already been
adopted by the House of Representatives in its Heroes package, which
was passed over 6 weeks ago. We must make our strategic stockpile
available to Tribes. Tribes should be able to access PPE, ventilators,
and other necessary medical equipment just as States can. We must make
sure that Tribes have equal access to the Centers for Disease Control
and their resources to prepare for public health emergencies like this
pandemic.
Seventy percent of Native Americans live in urban settings. Yet the
Medicaid reimbursement rate for Urban Indian Health facilities is lower
than the Federal reimbursement rate at other IHS facilities. We need to
balance the scales and help the 43 Urban Indian Health facilities
across the Nation expand their services.
As so much of our lives move to the internet, we must make sure that
Native schools, healthcare facilities, and government services are not
left on the wrong side of the digital divide. All Tribes must have
access to high-speed broadband.
This public health and economic crisis has hit us all hard, but we
shouldn't deny that some communities have been hit hard. We need to
send immediate relief to those communities that have been so severely
hurt, including Native communities, and we need to set our sights on
genuinely taking on the systemic and institutional barriers these
communities have faced for far too long. We can, we should, and we must
do better.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague, the
Senator from New Mexico, Tom Udall, to call for urgent action by
Congress to respond to the needs of Tribal nations and urban indigenous
communities during the COVID-19 pandemic.
We have not done enough. We have not lived up to our shared trust and
treaty obligations. And in this moment, we are called upon to respond
to the historic injustice and systems of oppression and institutional
violence that are harming communities of color and indigenous people.
Over the last month, people in Minnesota and across our country have
focused our attention on the deep systemic inequities that Black,
Brown, and indigenous people face. This injustice is not new. It is as
old as the colonization of our country, but, colleagues, this is a
unique moment.
This public health crisis presents us with an opportunity to show
that we are serious about repairing the damage done by our broken
promises to sovereign Tribal nations and urban indigenous communities.
Some have said that COVID-19 is the great equalizer, but we know that
COVID hits hardest those without a safe place to call home, those
struggling with low wages and poverty and lack of healthcare, and
Black, Brown, and indigenous people living with the trauma of having
their identity and their very humanity called into question, even
before this virus spread.
The impact of COVID on Native communities has been devastating.
Native people have been hospitalized for COVID at five times the rate
of White people. In mid-May, the Navajo Nation reached a higher per-
capita infection rate than any other hotspot in the country.
Why is it that COVID is hitting Tribal nations so hard? Despite
repeated calls from Tribal leaders and urban indigenous leaders, over
the past few decades, the Federal Government has stood by and allowed
the budget of the Indian Health Service to dwindle. They have neglected
Indian housing programs, and they have ignored growing health
inequities.
The Federal institutions dedicated to serving Indian Country are not
broken. Unfortunately, these institutions have never been adequate to
live up to our trust and treaty responsibilities, and they represent a
broken promise.
The Federal Government's failure has life-and-death consequences for
Native people--for their health, for their well-being, and for their
opportunity to provide for their families.
Think of this striking statistic: Unemployment in the indigenous
community in the Twin Cities is at a terrible 47 percent--higher than
any other group in our State.
Within Tribal nations, the economic impact of the coronavirus is
equally devastating. Early this spring, Tribal governments in Minnesota
and all around the country made the difficult decision to voluntarily
close Tribal enterprises in order to protect public health. As a
result, they lost significant government revenue and also experienced
massive unemployment, not only for their members but for members from
the surrounding communities. This lost revenue meant that Tribal
governments were forced to scale back essential services, like
nutrition assistance for elders, public safety, and education
programming.
In the CARES Act, Congress agreed to $8 billion in emergency relief
to help Tribes respond to COVID. Even after congressional action,
though, Tribal governments have had to continue fighting to get their
fair share of those dollars. The Trump administration argued that some
of this relief should go to for-profit Alaska Native corporations. Then
it took the Treasury Department 40 days to distribute just the first 60
percent of the funds to Tribes, and not until 2 weeks ago, almost 3
months after passage of the CARES Act, did Tribal governments receive
the rest. To be clear, these funds cannot be used to replace lost
revenue.
We have so much work to do to fulfill our commitment to indigenous
people and the simple proposition that Native families should have
equal access to healthcare and housing opportunity as White Americans.
When I speak to Tribal leaders in my State about this cycle of
historic underinvestment, inequity, and broken promises, I share their
frustration. I don't know how anybody couldn't.
Indigenous leaders in Minnesota know that a lack of housing on Tribal
lands leads to overcrowding, which increases the risk of contracting
COVID. Tribes have asked over and over for sufficient funding for
housing programs. They shouldn't have to ask anymore.
Indigenous leaders know a lack of access to healthcare and substance
abuse disorder treatment lead to chronic health conditions, like
diabetes, heart disease, and asthma, which worsen COVID symptoms.
Tribes have asked over and over for sufficient funding to address these
health inequities, and they shouldn't have to ask anymore.
Indigenous leaders know that a lack of access to credit and capital
prevents urban indigenous households and folks living on Tribal lands
from building wealth like their White neighbors, who can more easily,
therefore, weather the storm of unemployment.
Native communities have asked over and over to enforce fair lending
laws and to ensure access to credit for minority borrowers, and they
shouldn't have to ask anymore. Long before COVID, these inequities have
harmed indigenous people. Our inaction has placed Tribal nations in the
untenable position of having to ask for what they are already owed.
[[Page S4091]]
So let's take this extraordinary moment--a terrible moment but a
moment of real opportunity, a moment when our country is called to
respond to this terrible pandemic and to reckon with systemic
inequities that have hurt Native people and even sought to erase them--
and let's turn this moment to good.
We have an opportunity not only to address the public health and
economic crisis of COVID but also to live up to our obligation to
Tribes, like providing them with the tools to build resiliency in their
communities.
First, we need to provide rapid, flexible support to Tribal
governments so that they can respond to COVID-19 and provide essential
services to Tribal members at the same time.
Second, let's live up to our promises and fully fund the Indian
Health Service and the NAHASDA housing programs. When we do this, we
will be addressing the shortage of physical and behavioral healthcare
for young adults and parents and elders, and we will make it easier for
families to find affordable safe places to live and to build wealth
through homeownership.
We can do this. It is within our power. We can end this cycle of
underinvestment and institutional violence. This is the best moment in
a generation to accomplish this.
I am committed to lifting up the voices of indigenous leaders in
Minnesota and around this country. I follow their lead, and I will
continue to advocate for these changes because they are so long
overdue.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in this work.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Fourth of July
Mrs. LOEFFLER. Mr. President, 160 years ago, Abraham Lincoln reminded
us that ``at all times . . . all American citizens are brothers of a
common country, and should dwell together in the bonds of fraternal
feeling.''
That bond--our commitment to coming together to move our country
forward, our embrace of the challenges our country faces because we
know we will come out of these moments strong--has made the United
States exceptional.
As we approach the Fourth of July holiday, I want to take a moment to
recognize what makes America who she is today and the values that have
allowed us to carry on the Great American Experiment for 244 years.
The United States--the shining city on a hill, the land of
opportunity, the land of the free and the home of the brave, the red,
white, and blue--our country is exceptional precisely because we have
never settled for anything less.
It was that very reason it was Americans who first discovered
electricity, built the airplane, put a man on the Moon, developed
chemotherapy, and that other countries look to us for leadership during
troubled times. It is why we prevailed in two world wars, defeated the
axis of evil, and have since maintained the greatest Armed Forces in
the world. It is why the ideal of the American dream exists.
Importantly, it is the American people, past and present, who have
shaped our American character--the 56 men who put their lives on the
line to draft and sign the Declaration of Independence in 1776; the
volunteer army of farmers and shopkeepers who defeated the British and
today has grown into the best fighting force the world has ever seen.
Fifty-five Americans came together to write the U.S. Constitution,
guaranteeing the freedoms for Americans to worship, to speak out, to
bear arms, and to peaceably assemble. In the years that followed,
America fulfilled its promise to form a more perfect union while
acknowledging it is not perfect but always striving to do better.
We ended the injustice of slavery; 100 years ago this year, gave
women the right to vote; overcame the Great Depression; fought for the
equal rights of all Americans during the civil rights movement; and
persevered after September 11.
Today we still have those heroes who make America what she is today.
We see these works in our midst every day: our service men and women
who bravely protect us across the globe and keep the enemy away from
our shores; the dedicated men and women of law enforcement who work
tirelessly to keep our communities and our families safe; our teachers,
who provide the gift of education to our youth; our doctors and nurses,
who save lives every day and have bravely taken on the challenge of
COVID-19.
American exceptionalism started with our humble beginnings, and it
has endured throughout the challenges our country faces.
It is tempting to focus on the divisions in America today, but we
have much more in common that unites us. This Fourth of July is a
reminder of the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness that all Americans deserve.
President Reagan once said:
Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one
generation away from extinction. It is not ours by
inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by
each generation, for it comes only once to a people.
I agree, and I hope this Fourth of July we can stand together, proud
that we will strive to make this country a more perfect union.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
S. 4049
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to address a glaring
inequality in the law--one that leaves our servicemembers with fewer
protections from discrimination than civilians. On June 15, the Supreme
Court issued a momentous decision--welcomed by Members of both
parties--extending civil rights employment protections to LGBTQ
individuals in workplaces across America. That decision, however, does
not apply to servicemembers. That means our servicemembers, who often
come from communities that have for generations bravely sacrificed for
the United States, currently enjoy fewer statutory protections than
their civilian counterparts.
Think about what that says about our country: The law treats the
people willing to risk their lives to defend our freedoms as second
class citizens. It is unconscionable, and it is un-American. In this
moment of reckoning on civil rights, we must ensure those rights extend
to all of our military servicemembers.
The push for the desegregation of our troops, for gender integration
into combat, and for the repeal of don't ask, don't tell were all met
with similar arguments about how increased opportunity for the group in
question would hamper readiness, unit cohesion, or otherwise weaken the
military. Those arguments have been proven wrong every single time.
It is, in fact, the lack of protections for these groups that hamper
readiness. Without protections, an able platoon sergeant can be
stigmatized and driven from the military because he is transgender. His
years of experience and the immense investments the military has made
in him can be erased with the stroke of a pen.
Our military has grown only stronger as it better represents our
country. But, right now, in the year 2020, people who are willing to
make extraordinary sacrifices for our freedoms are being told no simply
because of who they are.
We must do better. And we can. We can make sure the National Defense
Authorization Act includes discrimination protections for all
servicemembers.
My amendment with Senator Collins would codify in the law that
servicemembers of all races, religions, and sexes are protected from
discrimination. It would affirm that Americans of every race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and national origin have the
right to join and serve and sacrifice in our military.
I was proud to have Senator John McCain join me in leading similar
legislation to protect transgender troops 3 years ago. The late Senator
said: ``Any member of the military who meets the medical and readiness
standards should be allowed to serve--including those who are
transgender.'' I hope this will be the year that we deliver the results
he wanted for our troops.
Placing language safeguarding this right into the NDAA can help us
begin to overcome an unfortunate legacy of creating artificial,
blatantly unfair barriers to service by underrepresented groups. It is
a legacy that continues to
[[Page S4092]]
this day with the Trump administration's ban on transgender
servicemembers.
That discriminatory ban is not only an insult to members of the
transgender community who have served our country; it is an insult to
every LGBTQ person who has given their life to protect it. Arguments
against open transgender service have no basis in experience or in
science.
Transgender individuals served openly in the military for more than
2\1/2\ years without any readiness or cohesion issues. I know because I
asked all four service chiefs and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and they all confirmed it. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Mark Milley, who was then Chief of Staff of the Army, told me
that he had received ``precisely zero reports of issues of cohesion,
discipline, [or] morale'' caused by transgender individuals in the
service.
The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric
Association, and other experts agree: There is no medically valid
reason to exclude transgender individuals from military service. Anyone
who can meet the military standards should be allowed to serve--and
serve in an environment free from discrimination. It is that simple.
Our Armed Services should reflect the best of what this country has
to offer--in their values and in their ranks. We cannot allow for laws
that unnecessarily limit their ability to recruit and retain the best
person for the job.
I ask my colleagues to support our troops with more than lip service.
I ask my colleagues to extend to them protections from discrimination
based on race, religion, or sex. These are people who are willing to
fight for our country. These are people who are willing to die for our
country. This body and our country must be willing to fight for them.
My amendment will do exactly that. I ask all of you to support its
inclusion in this year's NDAA
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise again to address another
issue. I rise because, according to the Pentagon's recent biannual
survey, almost 21,000 servicemembers were sexually assaulted in the
year 2018. That was a 38-percent increase from the year before.
I rise because the current climate of retaliation in our armed
services and the lack of justice provided by the chain of command meant
nearly three-quarters of those assaults went unreported, and less than
10 percent of cases considered for command action went to trial--less
than 10 percent.
I rise because I stood in this very Chamber in 2013 and shared
essentially the same statistics.
Year after year, the leaders of our armed services come to Congress
and commit to making things better. They commit to us in hearing after
hearing: We will get this right. Yet, year after year, thousands of
servicemembers are raped and sexually assaulted, and their assailants
are not held accountable.
In many of those cases, the assailant is someone in the survivor's
chain of command--the same chain of command that will decide the case,
picking judge, jury, prosecutor, defense counsel--all decided by a
commander in that chain of command.
There is no other judicial system in America that would ever allow
this to happen. This system is not delivering justice. The chain of
command is not delivering justice. These decisions--these fundamental
civil rights decisions--need to be made somewhere else. They need to be
made by trained, impartial military professionals, prosecutors,
lawyers--people who are trained to make this very hard decision.
We are asking survivors to come forward in an environment where they
know that there is less than a 10-percent chance that the chain of
command will try their assailant for a crime and--worse--that there is
only a two in three chance that they themselves--they themselves--will
face retaliation.
Despite repeated efforts to stamp out the scourge of retaliation
against military sexual assault survivors, the most recent Pentagon
survey found that 64 percent of these survivors have experienced some
form of retaliation for reporting the crime. This figure is
statistically unchanged from 2016. It is unacceptable.
I ask you: Who is this system designed for?
I think so often about a Marine veteran who told me:
When I reported the assault, my command responded with
retaliation . . . ostracism, intimidation, and isolation. The
humiliation of the retaliation was worse than the assault
because it was sanctioned from those same leaders I once
would have risked my life for.
The climate of retaliation comes from the top. It comes from the
chain of command. They should not be deciding these cases. They do not
have the background or the impartiality necessary to deliver justice.
This system is broken, and it is failing our servicemembers.
This Congress has passed and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on
incremental reforms since 2013. During this time, an estimated 137,000
servicemembers have been assaulted.
Let me say that again. During that time, 137,000 servicemembers have
been sexually assaulted.
What are we doing here? Can we not hold the U.S. military
accountable? Can we not do our jobs? Can we not stand up for the men
and women who risk their lives for us every day?
Incremental change that leaves the power in the hands of the chain of
command is not enough. We have the proof and the evidence.
``We've got this ma'am; we've got this.'' They say it every year.
They don't have it, and they haven't had it for the last 7 years we
have been focused on this very issue. It does not do enough to protect
our servicemembers from sexual assault in the ranks or to punish
perpetrators who commit these violent crimes.
Just for a minute, imagine this is your daughter or your son. Imagine
just for a minute that your children decide to go into the military. Do
you think they will be protected?
My bill, the Military Justice Improvement Act, is being offered as an
amendment to the NDAA. This amendment will professionalize how the
military prosecutes serious crimes like sexual assault, and it will
remove the systemic fear that survivors have to report these crimes.
Survivors don't report these crimes because they fear the retaliation
against them.
This bipartisan and commonsense reform leaves the majority of
uniquely military crimes, as well as all crimes punishable by less than
1 year of confinement, within the chain of command. It would only move
one decision--literally, one decision--that only 3 percent of
commanders actually have the right to make, and that decision will be
made by a trained military prosecutor.
These prosecutors, or military JAGS, are required to be licensed
attorneys in good standing with their State bar associations and are
subject to professional rules of ethics. Those are commonsense
standards, but they are not the standards that commanders have to meet.
Commanders aren't typically lawyers. They are not typically criminal
lawyers. They are not trained in how to make this fundamental decision
about whether a crime has been committed. So why wouldn't you let
military police investigate the crime just as they do today?
They take that investigation and, instead of putting it on the
commander's general counsel's desk, they will put it on a military
prosecutor's desk. The military prosecutor gets to make a decision: yes
or no; I can prosecute or I can't. Then, that file goes right back to
the commander. So when the commander wants to do nonjudicial
punishment, he gets to do it. Every time a prosecutor says there is no
case here, he gets to have the same authority he has today.
Under today's standards, only 10 percent of these cases go to trial.
That would mean the commanders don't get to make that one decision that
3 percent of them get to make 10 percent of the time because 90 percent
of the time it comes right back to the commander to do whatever
nonjudicial punishment he or she thinks is appropriate.
This is a very small but important change because when you make this
change, the survivor sees that the decision isn't being made within her
chain of command. She or he sees that the decision is being made by
somebody trained to make the decision--someone who is actually a
prosecutor. He or she will then believe it is worth reporting the
crime.
[[Page S4093]]
So many of these crimes don't even get reported and, sadly, the
percentage of those that are being reported is going up--the percentage
of those reported confidentially. It doesn't show that there is any
faith in the system if people will only report if they don't name their
perpetrator.
This reform is nothing new. This reform has been done all across the
world by our allies. Our allies in the United Kingdom, Canada, Israel,
Germany, and Australia have all removed reporting and prosecution of
violent sex crimes out of the chain of command. Leaders in those
militaries have reported that these changes have not diminished their
ability in any way. It has not diminished their commanders' ability to
maintain good order and discipline, to train their troops, and to do
what they are there for.
Congress owes our servicemembers a debt of gratitude that can never
be fully repaid. These brave men and women who have experienced the
unimaginable are counting on us this year to finally take real action.
Until we do, we continue to fail in our responsibility to protect them.
Madam President, this is something we have worked on together for
over 7 years. This is something that, on a bipartisan basis, this
Chamber has worked on for 7 years. We have been denied a vote on this
over the last 5 years--denied a vote on this the last 5 years. The
military has fought tooth and nail to not put in these fundamental
reforms. They ask us over and over: Trust us; we got this. Trust us; we
got this.
They don't have it. They haven't had it, and they don't focus on it.
If you just look at the report from this year alone, we are up to
20,000--over 20,000--sexual assaults in the last year. The percentage
of cases that are being reported confidentially is going up. The
percentage of cases that are being reported openly is going down. The
percentage of cases that are going to trial is going down. The
percentage of cases ending in conviction is going down. So under no
measure today has the military succeeded in this mission, under
absolutely none. They say they got this. They don't have it. They never
have. And if we don't do our job this year, they never will.
This is not something new. This is something that other countries
that are our allies have done. It professionalizes the military. It
gives hope to survivors. It creates permission for them to report these
crimes. If more crimes are reported, more prosecutions will be
completed, and more cases will end in conviction.
Send a message: Convict perpetrators. Protect survivors. Honor the
sacrifice and legacy of every man and woman who serves in the military
today who will give their life for this country. That is our
responsibility.
I urge everyone in this Chamber to stand with our troops. Stand with
the men and women who sacrifice everything, and do the right thing. It
is our job. We are supposed to provide oversight and accountability
over the U.S. military. It is the Senate's job, and every year that we
don't address this fundamental scourge is another year we fail.
I am tired of this Chamber failing our servicemembers. I am tired of
our commanders and our military failing our servicemembers. We owe
everything to them
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. McSally). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Paycheck Protection Program
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, last night, the Senate approved
legislation to extended the Paycheck Protection Program, better known
as PPP, through August 8, while we continue bipartisan negotiations on
a bill to provide additional assistance to our small businesses that
have been especially hard hit by COVID-19 mitigation measures.
I very much hope that the House of Representatives will act quickly
to extend this important lifeline for our small employers, as new PPP
loans cannot be issued until the bill that passed the Senate last night
is enacted and signed into law, even though approximately $130 billion
remains available for the program.
Let me, again, commend my partners in this endeavor, Senators Marco
Rubio, Ben Cardin, and Jeanne Shaheen, for their continued work on this
vital program.
Back in March, the four of us formed a small business task force. We
looked at ways that we could help our small employers and their
employees survive this pandemic. We put forth a bold plan, the Paycheck
Protection Program, to help small employers and their employees. Our
concept was straightforward: provide forgivable loans to small
employers to help them maintain that vital connection with their
employees, so that both could rebound and thrive once the pandemic
passes.
In some cases, that meant that a small business could retain an
employee who, otherwise, would have been laid off. In others, it has
meant that the small business could recall workers who had already been
laid off. And in yet other cases, it allowed employers to continue to
send paychecks to employees who had been furloughed so that we could
keep that link between employers and their employees, so that when the
reopening occurred, they could be reunited quickly and the business
could get up and running much more rapidly.
The response to this program has been phenomenal. Since its launch in
early April, it has provided $518 billion in forgivable loans to 4.8
million small employers across the Nation.
According to an ongoing U.S. Census Survey, nearly three out of every
four small business respondents reported that they had received
assistance under the PPP program. In Maine, nearly 27,000 small
businesses have received forgivable loans, totaling more than $2.2
billion. Just to give you an idea of how much of a stimulus that is,
that is equal to almost half of the entire State budget. That works out
to an average loan size of $83,400, which translates into a small
business with approximately seven employees. All told, this program is
helping to sustain nearly 200,000 jobs in the State of Maine.
As Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin testified last month:
The [Paycheck Protection Program] is supporting the
employment of approximately 50 million workers and more than
75 percent of small business payroll in all 50 states. This
is an extraordinary achievement.
It is, indeed. It has made such a difference to our small employers.
It has kept our small businesses afloat, prevented them from giving up
and shuttering their doors forever, and provided paychecks to their
employees.
When we first drafted this program in early March, we did not know
how long government-ordered closures would last. In fact, most of them
had not even gone into effect at the time that we drafted the law. We
also did not know how severe the impacts of these government-ordered
closures would be. We did not know how long the pandemic would last.
How I wish that we could announce today that COVID-19 had been
conquered; that America's small businesses were flourishing once again;
and that the millions of jobs that they provide had been fully
restored. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and we have a long road
ahead of us.
According to a survey released last week by NFIB, an organization
that is dedicated to providing a voice for America's small businesses,
half of its members anticipate needing additional financial support in
the next 12 months.
I fear that, if Congress fails to act, despite our good work to date,
millions of our small businesses will be put at risk, and millions of
jobs will be lost.
A case study of how the pandemic has threatened the viability of
small businesses can be found in Maine's tourism sector. Tourism is one
of our State's largest economic sectors. It supports 110,000 jobs. That
is one out of every six jobs in our State. In 2018, total tourism
expenditures exceeded $6.2 billion. That is $7 million per day.
In late March, there was the expectation that the 2020 tourism season
would certainly be lower than the norm but active enough for the
tourism businesses to survive. But, as the Fourth of July draws closer,
near empty hotels, inns, B&Bs, and restaurants portend a long-lasting
disaster, as many of our
[[Page S4094]]
State's seasonal businesses rely on the busy summer season and fall
season to pay their major bills for the year, including their mortgage
and property taxes, not to mention their all-important employees.
Two weeks ago, a Maine innkeeper in York County told me that her inn
would normally have a 94-percent occupancy rate at this point in the
summer. She currently has an occupancy rate of 6 percent.
As one observer put it, the word ``Vacationland,'' which appears on
our license plates in Maine, might well be replaced with ``Vacancy
Land.''
I have heard from so many hotel owners throughout Maine, and their
stories all have a familiar theme: Reservations made months ago for
July and August are being canceled, and cancelations for the fall are
also starting to come in. In addition to putting hotel staff at risk of
losing their jobs, or having their hours cut drastically, or not being
hired in the first place, the vendors that supply these establishments
are losing sales. Local retailers and restaurants are losing summer
customers. Planned improvements and expansions are being postponed,
causing harm for local tradespeople.
I talked to a restaurant owner who operates a wonderful restaurant in
Portland. Right now, she has to depend on outside seating and lives in
fear of a bad storm, where people won't be able to eat outside. Only
slowly is Maine allowing in-restaurant eating to resume in the most
populous parts of our State. All of us understand that we have to put
the health of people first, but these restaurant owners are getting
desperate, and they are trying very hard to comply with all the CDC
regulations.
There is no doubt that similar disruptions are occurring across the
country. That is why it is so important that we reach bipartisan
agreement to allow those small businesses that have been especially
hard hit by the pandemic to receive an additional forgivable loan. As
we continue our bipartisan negotiations on such a plan, I have come to
the floor to outline some of my own priorities for a second Paycheck
Protection Program loan.
First, I do believe that we will achieve bipartisan agreement to
allow the hardest hit small business employers--those who have seen
their revenues decline by 50 percent or more in any quarter this year
compared to the same quarter last year--to receive an additional PPP
loan. This is absolutely essential to the ability of these businesses
to survive as the fight against COVID-19 continues
Second, because we must stretch the $130 billion that remains in the
PPP funds as far as we possibly can, I support generally limiting
eligibility to entities that have 300, rather than 500 or fewer,
employees with a special provision for seasonal employers.
Third, I believe that we need to expand forgivable PPP expenses in
some commonsense ways. For example, we should allow forgiveness for
supplier costs and investments in facility modifications and personal
protective equipment that employers are buying to protect their
employees and their customers, such as plexiglass shields, patio
installations for outdoor dining, masks, gloves--that kind of
equipment. It is especially important to restaurants facing dining
restrictions and those struggling to get the high-quality food supply
that they need. We should also clarify that employer-provided group
health benefits are included in forgivable payroll costs.
Fourth, we should extend the PPP to small 501(c)(6) organizations
that are not lobby organizations. I am talking about local chambers of
commerce, business leagues, economic development associations, and
boards of trade, which are doing a great job but are struggling to
themselves survive.
Fifth, we should clarify in statute that forgivable loan funds can be
spent through December 31 and allow borrowers to apply for loan
forgiveness, at the time of their choosing, after 8 weeks from loan
origination.
Finally, to ensure transparency in the PPP loan program, we should
require the Small Business Administration to comply with data and
information requests from the Government Accountability Office or
Federal inspectors general within 15 days.
There are many other ideas that the four of us who are members of the
Small Business Task Force are taking a look at, but today, I just
wanted to outline for my colleagues some ideas that I am particularly
interested in including in this bill.
As the shutdowns have grown longer, it has become clear that millions
of small employers need additional help if they are to keep their heads
above water and survive. It also has been clear that many of these
employers must make substantial investments to modify their operations,
to protect their employees and customers, to mitigate the spread of the
COVID virus.
Most of all, we need to always keep in mind that we are talking about
employees. It is the small businesses of our country that employ the
majority of the people who are working.
We are close to reaching a bipartisan agreement, and I know we are
going to be working very hard over the recess to do so. I also know
that, for small businesses that are struggling, such an agreement
cannot come soon enough.
Again, I want to thank my colleagues--Senator Marco Rubio, Senator
Ben Cardin, Senator Jeanne Shaheen--for their dedication and good-faith
efforts to reach an agreement.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I came before the Chamber yesterday and
made the case as to why Congress needs to begin negotiations on another
COVID-19 emergency supplemental bill and to do it now. The needs are
real. They are immediate. In fact, when the House passed the Heroes
Act, we should have begun those negotiations in the first week after it
had passed it, but we didn't. We should have begun the negotiations in
the second week after it had passed it, but we didn't. We should have
begun the negotiations in the third week after it had passed it, but we
didn't--and the fourth and the fifth and the sixth.
Every day, I talk with Vermonters, sometimes hundreds at a time in
statewide conference calls. From small businesses, to families, to
schools, to hospitals, to Federal employees, I hear their urgent needs.
So I want to talk today about just one of those urgent needs--funding
for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS.
It plays an important role in our Nation's immigration system. It
processes requests for immigration benefits, American citizenship, and
it screens asylum seekers. The agency is staffed by more than 19,000
dedicated men and women across the country, including roughly 1,700 in
my home State of Vermont.
Last Friday, furlough notices were sent out to 13,350 of the 19,000
USCIS employees. They are effective next month, on August 3. That is
just 4 weeks from now. In Vermont, 1,111 men and women received this
notice, which is over 65 percent of the USCIS workforce in Vermont.
These are men and women who, day after day, do important work for the
Nation. They have continued to do that work every day even during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
And they have been told, even though they have been doing the work
loyally and effectively, after August 3, a month from now, they can no
longer do their job; they will no longer receive a paycheck.
Nationwide these are 13,350 new and urgent reasons why the Senate
must act on our Nation's real and immediate needs, and the Senate
majority must make that possible now. We have lost 6 weeks since the
House acted on this. It is time the Senate acts.
I have been ringing the alarm bells for more than a month on this
issue. We know that due to declining revenue, immigration-related
application fees coming into USCIS, the agency is facing a budget
shortfall of $1.2 billion, and the furlough notices that were suddenly
sent out last week are the result of this shortfall. USCIS is simply
saying they can't pay employees with revenues they do not have.
I would remind everybody the shortfall is not entirely due to COVID-
19. The agency has not lived within its budget for the last 3 years of
this administration, and, frankly, the Trump administration's
mismanagement and extreme immigration policies have only worsened the
situation.
As part of the President's efforts to erase our identity as a nation
of immigrants, he has not just tried to shut
[[Page S4095]]
our Nation's doors to asylum seekers and refugees, he has attempted to
restrict almost all immigration to this country.
He has created obstacles for immigrant workers, created a wealth test
for immigrants, even exploited the current public health emergency to
impose additional immigration restrictions that have nothing to do with
public health.
And because USCIS has not been able to issue visas or process other
immigration benefits as they normally do as a result of President
Trump's anti-immigrant policies, revenue, of course, has fallen.
No matter the cause, the budget shortfall is real. We have to address
it. Furloughs would not only disrupt the processing of immigration
benefits and American citizenship and other critical services provided
by USCIS, but it is going to cause unnecessary hardships on thousands
of Federal employees and Federal contractors. It is going to come at a
time when our Nation is already dealing with record job losses.
The loss of these valuable jobs will also cause hardship to the
communities across the Nation where these Federal workers live and
work. These are communities already struggling with the pandemic. They
were dealing with people who have skills that have been built up over
years of experience.
So let's craft a fair, responsible solution to this problem. That
would require emergency appropriations and accompanying legislation to
ensure transparency and accountability.
Time is of the essence. I know, as vice chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, we have agreement on the vast majority of the
possible appropriations bills. There has been a concern by the
Republican majority not to bring them up because they do not want
something on COVID.
Well, every Senator can go home and talk to their people in their
State. They will hear, as I do every single day in my calls from
Vermonters, there is a need to do something regarding COVID.
Now, there have been numerous calls by myself and the Democratic
leadership in the Senate, and despite those calls, the White House and
the Republican majority have refused to move forward on a fourth COVID-
19 emergency appropriations bill where we could address this and other
critical issues caused by the coronavirus pandemic.
We should not wait any longer. In fact, we must not wait any longer.
I call on Majority Leader McConnell to begin bipartisan negotiations on
a COVID-19 emergency relief bill now so we can solve this problem
before furloughs are necessary.
The Senate is about to recess for 2 weeks, but that doesn't mean our
work stops. With millions of people working from home due to the
coronavirus, including in the U.S. Senate, we have shown that we can do
our job from wherever we are located.
I know, on the major COVID bill, my staff and I worked 7 days a week,
sometimes very late into the night, and we are all in separate
locations, but we got it done, and we got an appropriations bill
through here that almost all Republicans and Democrats voted for
because people worked together. We worked together. We passed
legislation this country needed.
We showed it can be done, so we can and we should begin bipartisan,
bicameral negotiations. Do it during the next 2 weeks so that when the
Senate is back in session, we have legislation to consider and debate.
We can enact the bill into law expeditiously.
If there are amendments people want or things they want to change,
vote them up or vote them down. We should be willing to stand here and
vote, and then we can enact a bill into law and do it expeditiously.
The American people deserve no less. The dedicated men and women at
USCIS deserve no less, but I would say the men and women of every
single one of our States deserve no less.
There are 100 of us here. We have shown we can work together. We have
done it before. We have done it with appropriations bills. We sat here,
voted for or against amendments, and then did what is best for the
country. Let's do it. Let's not be afraid to vote.
I see my distinguished friend from Texas on the floor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Vermont for his
courtesy.
Yesterday, Texas reported almost 7,000 new coronavirus cases, setting
a new single-day record.
As cases have climbed in recent weeks, it has become clear that we
need to take what we have learned about this virus and adjust our
strategy.
In the beginning, we were still learning about this novel virus and
how it is transmitted, while also trying to maximize scarce resources.
I think the best analogy I can think of--we were trying to design and
build an airplane while we were flying it.
Because of that, only individuals with symptoms or who had been in
contact with a person who had tested positive could be tested
themselves, but we know a lot has changed in the last few months. We
have learned that individuals can have the virus even if they aren't
showing symptoms.
Recent studies in North Carolina and New York have shown that
somewhere between 12 and 20 percent of people could have the COVID-19
antibodies. In other words, they have had the virus, and they
recovered, but they didn't even know they were sick in the first place,
but the problem is they can still spread it to others.
As our knowledge about the coronavirus has increased, so have our
testing capacities, but I think it is important to take stock of where
we are and to see how we need to adjust further to, again, what we have
learned by hard experience.
On Sunday, I traveled to Dallas, TX, with Vice President Mike Pence
for a briefing on the coronavirus response efforts, and we were joined
by two of those members--Dr. Deborah Birx and HUD Secretary Dr. Ben
Carson.
On the flight down, I was able to spend some time talking with Dr.
Birx about testing strategies and the ways we can more effectively
identify positive cases and stop the spread, especially among
asymptomatic individuals who have no incentive, no motivation to
request a test in the first place. If I am feeling well, why would I go
ask for a coronavirus test unless I am just curious. That is the
conundrum.
Dr. Birx talked about the concept of pool testing, which is one of
the most efficient ways to test large numbers of people using the least
amount of time and resources.
Let's say, for example, that a number of employees at a meat packing
plant are tested simultaneously. Rather than running each sample
individually to see if any of the employees had the virus, you would
pool the sample together and run it as a group. If the pool sample
comes back negative, you know that each individual within that pool is
negative. And if it comes back positive, each sample is run
individually to identify positive cases.
But this is a way to magnify the number of testing cases we can do by
maybe as much as a factor of 10.
This pool-testing model makes it much easier to conduct repeated
tests for individuals in a single setting such as workplaces, schools,
or nursing homes.
This is exactly the kind of strategy we are going to need as we
contemplate sending our children back to school.
Dr. Birx was recently quoted as saying: ``If you look around the
globe, the way people are doing a million tests or 10 million tests is
they're doing pooling.''
So as we are seeing spikes in Texas and a number of other States
across the country, it is clear we need to adapt to everything we have
learned and embrace a new and different strategy. We need more
efficient and effective ways to test broad swaths of people so we can
identify positive cases as soon as possible.
Now, we know this virus is particularly deadly if you are over 80
years old or if you have underlying health problems. For the rest of
us, honestly, if you get symptoms, you are probably going to recover.
Sadly, some will have to be hospitalized, but, actually, the level of
fatalities we have seen from the coronavirus infection have remained
remarkably low because our healthcare providers have discovered new
treatments and new ways to save lives.
A data scientist and associate professor at Cornell University named
[[Page S4096]]
Peter Frazier has said about pool testing that ``if you don't test
people without symptoms and focus only on symptomatic people, then you
miss the epidemic and continue spreading.''
We need to constantly reevaluate and adapt our strategy to ensure
that we are identifying cases as soon as possible to stop the spread
and to protect the most vulnerable among us.
I know the administration and the task force are working around the
clock on this, but to be frank, we need to up our game, and I hope we
will focus on developing a comprehensive testing strategy based on what
we have learned from this hard experience to combat the rise in cases
and community spread we are seeing in places like Texas and elsewhere.
S. 4049
Madam President, this week, the Senate is fulfilling one of our most
basic responsibilities--and that is to support our common defense.
Passing the strong, strategic, and bipartisan national defense
authorization bill is something we have done for the last 60 years. It
is how this body has ensured that generations of servicemembers would
be paid, that they would have the equipment and training they need, as
well as the weapons, the planes, and the ships to bring them home
safely. It is how we have taken stock of the evolving threat landscape
and made adjustments to ensure that our military remains the very best
in the world. It is a belief in peace through strength.
We know our adversaries are constantly watching us to see whether we
are hesitant or pulling back from our world leadership or maybe we are
not investing like they are in modern weapons systems that can defeat
our defenses.
Well, we know for all the technologies and innovation that have made
our lives simpler and more efficient, that these changes in technology
have made safeguarding our national security that much more
challenging.
We are seeing new technologies on the battlefield, and the race to
develop next-generation weapons, such as hypersonic missiles, has
allowed our competitors to get a few steps ahead of us. The bottom line
is, unless we continue our investment and our determination to remain
No. 1, we are going to be losing ground against our adversaries. We no
longer enjoy the across-the-board strategic edge that we used to have,
and it is time for us to take bold action to reverse the tide before it
is too late. That is what I believe we can achieve with this year's
National Defense Authorization bill.
I appreciate Chairman Inhofe and the members of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, which operates almost entirely on a bipartisan
basis. It really is a great tradition and one we don't want to break,
passing the Defense authorization bill each year
It also provides funding to both modernize and grow our aging fleet,
so we can send our troops around the world with the confidence that
they have the best equipment available.
I'm glad this legislation includes a provision I offered to increase
the number of new F-35 aircraft. When we talk about providing our
servicemembers with the best possible equipment, the F-35 is a prime
example. This 5th generation fighter gives our servicemembers an edge
in stealth, surveillance, and weapons systems.
Growing our F-35 fleet has been a priority for a number of years, and
this legislation will continue moving us in the right direction. These
aircraft will be made by hardworking Texans in Fort Worth, and provide
our servicemembers around the world with the most advanced and capable
aircraft to see them through their missions.
But maintaining a competitive edge requires much more than a fleet of
top of the line aircraft or a stockpile of innovative weapons. It also
requires end to end security in our supply chains.
The COVID-19 pandemic has really shone a light on the vulnerabilities
that come from a reliance on other countries for critical
manufacturing. We lean heavily on China and other countries for masks,
gloves, gowns, ventilators--all the equipment we've needed over the
past few months. That reliance has led to a shortage of these supplies
at the most critical time, and forced our medical workers to go into
battle without their traditional armor.
It's been a wake-up call on supply chain vulnerabilities, and a
reminder that we need to keep our most critical supply chains right
here at home. One area where we need improvement is with 5G. For all
the rewards that come with this advanced technology, there are also a
lot of risks, and we need to ensure we're protecting this critical
asset. That's why Senators Burr, Warner, and I introduced the Secure 5G
and Beyond Act, which is now law.
It requires the President to develop a strategy to ensure the
security of next generation telecom systems, and help our allies
protect their systems as well. But I believe we need to take this a
step further, and safeguard not only the networks themselves but the
supply chains that produce them. The reality is, a lack of domestic
industry has caused the U.S. to fall behind our foreign adversaries in
developing 5G technologies.
I'm glad the NDAA includes an amendment I offered to support these
critical supply chains. It would give the Department of Defense the
flexibility to partner with industry for commercial development and
deployment of 5G technologies. This will ensure we're investing in
American companies to strengthen and secure our critical networks,
which are vital not only to our national security, but to our everyday
lives.
Beyond supporting 5G, another critical supply chain we need to
support is for semiconductors.
These devices are everywhere--they're the underlying technology in
everything from our cell phones, to computers, to cell towers, to
missile defense systems. Despite the pervasiveness of these devices in
our everyday lives, we're largely relying on other countries to
manufacture them. Since 2000, the U.S. has dropped from producing
roughly a quarter of the world's semiconductors to only 12 percent.
Meanwhile, China has gone from manufacturing zero chips to 16 percent
of the world's supply, and plans to invest another $1.4 trillion in
semiconductor technologies. America has lost ground to global
competitors, and unless the U.S. takes action, it's estimated that by
2030, 83 percent of global semiconductor manufacturing capacity will be
in Asia. We need to bring back some of the talent that was first
created here in the U.S.
0f course, that's much easier said than done. Building a new foundry
is a very expensive undertaking, and it's going to require an
investment from the federal government.
That's why Senator Warner and I introduced the CHIPS for America Act,
and I hope we can include a version of this bill as an amendment to the
NDAA. This would create a federal incentive program through the
Department of Commerce to encourage semiconductor manufacturing in the
U.S.
In short, this would help stimulate domestic advanced semiconductor
manufacturing, and boost both our national security and global
competitiveness.
I mentioned, these devices are everywhere--military systems,
telecommunications, healthcare, agriculture, manufacturing. Virtually
every industry stands to benefit from a more secure semiconductor
supply chain and our economy would reap the benefits of bringing these
manufacturing jobs back to the United States.
This legislation would serve as a boon to both our national security
and our economy, and I'm hoping it will be included as part of the
NDAA.
I'd like to once again thank Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed
for upholding the now 60-year tradition of a bipartisan process to get
this legislation over the finish line on time. I'm glad this
legislation prioritizes advancements in the critical technologies that
will modernize our national defense, and restore our competitive edge.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, I would make a comment in
reaction to the comments of our good friend from Texas. What he says is
true, and the American people are not aware--and I don't say this
critically of the previous administration--but during the Obama
administration, his top priority was not really defense. He had his own
agenda, and, consequently, we suffered at that time.
In the last 5 years, which would have been from 2010 to 2015, he
reduced the
[[Page S4097]]
funding of our military by 25 percent. What people don't realize is,
during that same timeframe, Russia increased theirs by 34 percent, and
China increased the funding of their military by 83 percent. That put
us in a situation in which we have to do what we are doing, and that is
why this and the last bills have been very important.
We are still working on the National Defense Authorization Act. I
consider it to be the most important bill of the year. I know my
colleagues agree with me that this is very significant, and this is
something that we know is eventually going to pass. This will be the
60th consecutive year.
Our military is the best in the world. This week, with this bill, we
are going to make sure it stays that way. The goal of having a strong
military is deterrence--to make sure that we don't have to use it--and
to send a signal to our enemies that they can't win against us. This is
the message we need to send today, tomorrow, and forever. That is what
the national defense strategy tells us.
I don't have the national defense strategy book here, but we have
been adhering to it. It is a strategy that was put together a few years
ago by 12 Democrats, 12 Republicans, and all the experts in the field,
and we have been using it as our model ever since. So we want to make
sure that we have enough ships and planes and everything in place.
China and Russia have caught up in some areas, and I think it is
important, as the Senator from Texas said about the hypersonic weapons,
that we are talking about offensive and defensive weapons; we are
talking about something that is state of the art. They actually are
ahead of us right now, but with this bill we are going to get caught
up.
Our superiority rests on our staying ahead of our competition. We
ceded that advantage under the last administration, and we are going to
correct that. That is where we are right now.
I see the minority leader is here, and I would like to propose a
unanimous consent request.
Unanimous Consent Request--Amendments En Bloc
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be
determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic
leader, the following amendments be made pending en bloc and the Senate
vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed without
intervening action or debate: Paul amendment No. 2011; Sanders
amendment No. 1790; third, Cornyn-Schumer-Cotton amendment No. 2244.
I further ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be
called up en bloc and the Senate vote on adoption of the amendments en
bloc with no intervening action or debate.
I hesitate to do this. It will take me a minute to actually name all
of the amendments because it is important for our Members who are
watching to be aware of where they stand in line.
I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en
bloc and the Senate vote on adoption of the amendments en bloc with no
intervening action or debate: Moran, No. 1694; Hyde-Smith, No. 1881;
Romney, No. 1883; Portman, No. 1891; Kennedy, No. 1987; Romney, No.
2018; Sullivan, No. 2391; Johnson, No. 2077; Wicker, No. 2178, Fischer,
No. 2231; Risch, No. 2238; Gardner, No. 2241; Portman, No. 2243;
Inhofe-Reed, No. 2248; Peters, No. 1753; Warner, No. 1803; Coons, No.
1808; Warner, No. 1907; Tester, No. 1968; Bennet, No. 1977; Smith, No.
2058; Cortez Masto, No. 2186; King, No. 2215; Merkley, No. 2251;
Cantwell, No. 2255; Cantwell, No. 2256; Hirono, No. 2269; Menendez, No.
2270, and Peters, No. 2275.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Democratic leader
Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object, while I know the
committee is working hard and I know the Senator from Oklahoma and the
Senator from Rhode Island are working hard together in a very good way,
I know they have been trying to work up an agreement on three
amendments to come, as well as a managers' package, but there are
certain amendments that our side feels should be debated.
In a moment I will ask the chairman to modify his request to include
reasonable numbers of amendments that we believe should have rollcall
votes. None of these are ``gotcha'' amendments. None of these are
extraneous. They are not dealing with impeachment or the records of the
President or anything like that. Every one of them is related to the
NDAA bill, and there is sincere feeling on our side that these
amendments should be debated and voted on.
This is not an attempt to block or obstruct; this is an attempt to
come together. As we know, to make this work, we need bipartisan
agreement. All of them, as I said, are related to the NDAA bill.
The modification I am asking for also includes the two Republican
amendments, one from Senator Cornyn and one from Senator Paul.
I appreciate the chairman's desire to start voting on these
amendments, but I hope he will modify his request so that several more
Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle can amend the bill as
well, and we can move forward.
So I ask this question of my friend the chairman: Will the Senator
modify his request to include the following amendments to be called up
and voted on in relation to Sanders No. 1788, in lieu of Sanders
amendment No. 1790--that is the 10 percent cut to the Pentagon; Tester
No. 1972 on Agent Orange; Shaheen No. 1729 on the PFAS study;
Gillibrand No. 1755 on transgender policy; Manchin No. 2361 on NNSA;
Menendez No. 2396 on the Bounty Act; Van Hollen-Rubio No. 1845 on the
DETER Act; and Schatz-Murkowski No. 2252 on the section 1033 program?
I ask the Senator to modify his request to add those amendments, and
then Members on our side who have serious concerns can have their
amendments considered.
Mr. INHOFE. First of all, let me respond by saying that this has been
a long process, and it is one that has involved leadership on both
sides, and we are attempting to do that. I think that by looking at the
list I have read off, the Senator will see a lot of Democrats and a lot
of Republicans there. For that reason I think we have an adequate
number that several of us have agreed on, so I would object to
modification of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection to the modification is heard.
Is there objection to the original request?
Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object, I hope we can continue
these discussions in a productive and fruitful way, but at this point I
must object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Russia
Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to speak about the disturbing
reporting regarding Russian efforts to harm Americans in Afghanistan
through payments to the Taliban and the Haqqani network. This is deadly
serious and we--the Congress and the American public--must get answers
to a number of questions.
When did the United States first receive information suggesting that
Russia was providing financial support to Taliban or HQN operatives to
kill American troops?
What investigation has been done by DOD or intel agencies to
corroborate the charge?
What investigations have been done into the deaths of U.S. troops in
Afghanistan during the relevant time period to determine whether they
might be linked to Russian payments?
Was information about this allegation contained in the President's
daily briefing in late February? If so, why are the President and the
White House maintaining so strongly that the President was never
briefed?
When did the United States first brief allies--specifically, the
United Kingdom--on the intelligence concerning the Russian bounty
allegations?
What events led to an administrative interagency meeting on this
topic in late March?
What options were explored at that meeting? Were any undertaken?
To the extent that there is a difference of opinion about the
existence of such a program among U.S. agencies, what explains the
differing conclusions?
Did President Trump discuss the matter in any of the numerous phone
[[Page S4098]]
calls he had with Russian President Putin from late March through this
month?
If the President knew of the concern, why did he persist in trying to
get Russia invited as a participant to the G7 meeting to be held in the
United States this fall?
Why hasn't the President condemned the existence of any such program
or at least pledged that there would be serious consequences if such a
program existed?
That Russia might behave in a hostile manner toward U.S. troops in
Afghanistan would not be a surprise based upon Russia's track record of
bad behavior all over the globe, but what has been surprising has been
the administration's actions regarding this explosive allegation, and I
believe the Senate must get to the bottom of it.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romney). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Loeffler). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, since last week, the Senate--ostensibly
one of the great deliberative bodies in the world--supposedly has been
``debating'' the $740 billion National Defense Authorization Act. It
has been a very, very silent debate because of the 700 amendments that
have been filed to this bill. There have been no rollcall votes on any
of them. I do understand that in the managers' amendment, some of the
noncontroversial, nonsignificant amendments have been accepted and
absorbed, and that is fine. We have had a vigorous debate, but nobody
in the world has heard that debate because there has not been one
amendment here on the floor.
Knowing the way the Senate does business, I worry very much--and I
hope I am wrong, and I will do my best to prevent it, but I worry very
much that we are supposed to be getting out of here for the Fourth of
July break tomorrow night. Right now, it is a little after 2 p.m. on
Wednesday, and we are out of here on Thursday.
Given the fact that we are talking about 53 percent of the
discretionary budget of the U.S.A., I am just a little bit worried
about how many real amendments, significant amendments, are going to be
offered.
Let us be clear that over the last year, we have been part of what I
consider to be the biggest do-nothing Senate in the modern history of
this country. This country faces enormous crises in terms of the
pandemic, faces enormous crises in terms of an economic meltdown,
enormous crises in terms of racial injustice and police brutality,
enormous crises in terms of being the only major country on Earth not
to guarantee healthcare to all people as a human right, and enormous
crises that in Siberia last week, the temperature was 100 degrees,
which is frightening the scientific community because they understand
this is the tip of the iceberg regarding climate change. We have all
these crises out there, and nothing much happens here in the Senate.
Well, I think maybe it might be a good idea to start some real debate
right here. I have introduced six amendments that are significant. I
will discuss each of them. Other Members, Democrats and Republicans,
have also introduced significant amendments.
Given the fact we have done virtually nothing over the last year, I
think it is not inappropriate to have some serious debate on one of the
very major pieces of legislation we will be dealing with.
We are talking about a bill that will spend some $740 billion. That
is more money in terms of military spending than the next 11 nations
combined. Does anybody have a problem with that? Some of us do. Maybe
others don't. Let's debate it.
We are talking about a bill that will be spending more money on the
Pentagon than we did during the height of the Cold War and the height
of the wars in Vietnam and Korea. Does anyone have a problem with that?
Well, I do. Maybe some other people do. Maybe you don't. Tell me why
you think we should be spending more money on the military today in
terms of inflation than we did during the war in Vietnam. Let's debate
it.
We are talking about a bill that will provide 53 percent of the
entire discretionary budget to the bloat and wasteful Pentagon at a
time when the Defense Department cannot even pass an independent audit.
We have a huge budget for the Pentagon. They cannot pass an independent
audit, and the response of the Senate is, well, let's give them even
more money. It may make sense to some people. It doesn't make sense to
me.
In my view, it would be rather disgraceful for us to leave town,
recess the Senate for 2 weeks without getting a vote on a single
amendment and then come back in a couple of weeks to pass a $740
billion Defense bill without any opportunity to amend that bill.
If the horrific pandemic that we are now experiencing, where tens of
thousands of people are coming down with the virus every single day--if
the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that national security, the
well-being of our people, and protecting our people is a lot more than
just building bombs and missiles and jet fighters and tanks and
submarines. Our people are in trouble today in an unprecedented way
with the pandemic and with an economic meltdown in which tens of
millions of people have lost their jobs over the last couple of months.
We have to focus on how we protect those people. It is not just
spending money on planes and guns and bombs.
In order to begin the process of addressing some of the most
important issues facing our country, I have introduced five amendments,
all of which I think are important and all of which I believe need to
have a vote and a debate. Let me very briefly explain what those
amendments are and what they would do.
The first amendment would reduce the military budget by 10 percent
and use that $74 billion in savings to invest in distressed communities
in every State in this country that have been ravaged by extreme
poverty, mass incarceration, deindustrialization, and decades of
neglect.
It is no secret to anybody that the American people are hurting all
across this country. We have communities where unemployment today is
20, 25, 30 percent, where people are sleeping out on the streets, where
schools are underfunded, where decent-quality childcare is virtually
not available, and where air and water pollution is rampant. It is time
that we stop turning our backs on those communities.
What we are doing right now is focusing attention on the fact that 40
million Americans are living in poverty. Half of our people are living
paycheck to paycheck. And maybe--just maybe--instead of investing more
money in nuclear weapons and submarines and God knows what else, maybe
we want to invest in our own people, in jobs and healthcare and
education, so that they can live their lives with dignity and security.
I believe right now, in the midst of all of the crises this country
faces--the crisis of the pandemic, the crisis of the economic meltdown,
the crisis of racial injustice, the crisis of 100 million people being
uninsured or underinsured, the crisis of climate change--I think the
American people want real transformation. They are tired of the status
quo. They want a government that represents all of us, not the 1
percent and wealthy campaign contributors.
I do understand that the people behind this military budget who love
it so much are the military-industrial complex and the defense
contractors. They are doing phenomenally well. It is a great budget for
them. Their CEOs make tens of millions of dollars a year. They make
huge profits every single year. It is a good budget for them. But maybe
we may want to get our priorities right and have a good budget for
working families and low-income families in America. That is what my
amendment does.
This amendment is being cosponsored by Senators Markey and Warren. It
is also being supported by over 60 organizations throughout this
country representing millions and millions of people, including
organizations like Public Citizen, Union of Concerned Scientists,
Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Coalition on Human Needs.
These organizations are saying that maybe--just maybe--instead of
investing in weapons of destruction, instead
[[Page S4099]]
of spending more money on the military than the next 11 nations
combined, maybe we should invest in our people.
What this amendment would do is provide funding, again, for 1,000
distressed communities, from Vermont to Oklahoma, which would receive
Federal funding to hire more public school teachers, provide nutritious
meals to children and parents, and offer free tuition to public
colleges, universities, or trade schools.
At this pivotal moment in American history, we have to make a
fundamental decision that we want to continue spending billions on
endless wars in the Middle East, on weapons of mass destruction--of
which we have more than enough--or do we provide decent jobs and
education and healthcare for millions of people in our country?
Further, a major reason why there is so much waste, fraud, and abuse
at the Pentagon is, in fact, that the Defense Department remains the
only Federal agency in America that hasn't been able to pass an
independent audit, which deals with the second amendment that I have
introduced.
I don't think it is too much to say that the largest agency of the
Federal Government has to pass an independent audit.
There is nobody in the Senate who does not believe there is massive
waste and fraud at the Pentagon. Defense contractor after defense
contractor has pled guilty to fraud. We have massive cost overruns.
In the second amendment that I am offering, which has been
cosponsored by Senator Grassley, a longtime Republican leader here;
Senator Lee, a Republican from Utah; and Senator Wyden, of Oregon, all
that we are asking is that there be an independent audit of the Defense
Department and that it be completed no later than fiscal year 2025. It
is not a very radical idea.
The third amendment I am offering is one that, I would hope and
expect, would have wide support right here. I think it does have
support among the American people, and it certainly has widespread
support among the medical community and the epidemiologists of this
country.
Just yesterday, I was participating in a hearing of the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. We had the leading experts in
this country, including several representatives of the Trump
administration--Dr. Fauci and others--talking about the pandemic and
what we could do about it. There was widespread consensus. Nobody, I
think, has any doubt anymore, except maybe Donald Trump, that masks are
a very, very important preventive measure. They are not going to solve
all of the problems, but the evidence is overwhelming that the people
who wear masks in public, when they are around other people, are less
likely to transmit the virus or to receive the virus. Nobody doubts
that anymore.
So the question that we have to ask ourselves is this: How does it
happen that, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world and
with the strongest economy in the world, we have doctors and nurses
today who are dealing with people with COVID-19 and don't even have the
personal protective equipment that they need? How in God's name does
that happen?
We are spending 18 percent of our GDP on healthcare--twice as much as
any other country. Yet we cannot provide a $1 mask to a doctor or to a
nurse whose life is at stake. It is not only doctors and nurses.
What a number of countries around the world are doing, which is very
smart, is producing or acquiring large numbers of high-quality masks,
and they are distributing those masks to all of the households in their
countries. We should be making sure that every household in this
country has the masks that each needs. That will save lives. There is
an estimate from the University of Washington that it could save 30,000
lives during this pandemic if 95 percent of the American people were to
wear masks. It would also save us a substantial sum of money because it
is a lot cheaper to invest in masks than in the hospitalizations for
those who have the virus. I should mention that other countries that
are not as wealthy as we are--countries like South Korea, France,
Turkey, Austria, and others--are doing just that.
Again, this is an idea that has won support from not only Dr. Fauci
but from other leading healthcare experts who testified before the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions yesterday. That is
the third amendment--making sure that we utilize the Defense Production
Act to produce the masks that our medical professionals and the
American people need. We can save tens of thousands of lives and
hundreds of billions of dollars by doing it.
The fourth amendment I have filed would prohibit funding for military
aid and logistical support for the disastrous, Saudi-led war in Yemen.
I believe it is past time that we put an end to our unconstitutional
and unauthorized participation in this war.
On this issue, I am certainly not alone. A bipartisan majority of the
U.S. Senate has already voted three times--not once, not twice, but
three times--to halt all U.S. military support for the Saudi-led war in
Yemen. It is time for us to do that again--this time, not just in words
but in action. We should have no money going toward U.S. participation
in this horrible war, which is destroying a nation with some of the
poorest, most desperate people on Earth.
So that is the fourth amendment, and I think it would be hard for
anybody here to deny that it is an important amendment. This has
already been, in one form or another, passed three times. So let's get
some teeth into it.
The last amendment that I have filed would reduce the defense budget
by one-tenth of 1 percent--not a lot of money--and use that money to
make our Nation safer by reaching out to people throughout the world
and expanding educational and cultural exchange programs.
In other words, the theory behind this whole bill is that, by
spending $740 billion on the building of planes and tanks and guns and
the most sophisticated weapons of mass destruction in the history of
the world, it will make us safer. Well, I am not so sure. Maybe what
makes us safer is when we break down the fears and the hatred that
exist between peoples all over the world. Maybe what makes us safer is
when we get to know each other--that is, as human beings--whether we
are Chinese or Russians or Iranians or Brazilians or Canadians. Maybe
we all share the same human aspirations.
Throughout history, it has always been easy to demonize people you
don't know--always easy. That is what demagogues have always done. We
are fearful of Jews, of Blacks, of the Irish, of Italians, and of gay
people. It is so easy to demonize people with whom we are not
comfortable and don't know. They are not in our communities, and we
don't know anybody. Let's demonize the people of Iran, and let's
demonize the people of China and Russia.
This is not saying that I or anybody else here is in agreement with
their policies, but are weapons the only approach we have toward them?
Yes, we need a strong military, and I believe in a strong military. Do
you know what I also believe? When we have kids from the United States
who go to other countries and when other countries send their kids,
their farmers, their doctors, their nurses to America and when we get
to know each other, we have a shot at breaking down the irrational
hatred which foments so many problems throughout the world.
As a former mayor, I can tell you--and I am not alone--that this idea
of sister cities is certainly not a radical idea. I suspect that almost
everybody here in the Senate comes from a State in which a sister city
program exists or that you have programs with cities in other
countries. In Vermont, we have a number of them. I started several of
them when I was the mayor of Burlington. It was a beautiful thing to
see--kids from another country coming to our country and our people
going to other countries and learning.
All I am asking for is one-tenth of 1 percent--$7 billion--no, less
than that. What am I talking about? All I am asking for is $700 million
to encourage cultural and educational exchange programs. By taking this
tiny fraction from our defense budget--one-tenth of 1 percent--and
applying it to these exchange programs, we will send a message about
the critical role these exchange programs play. They exist all over
this country already, but I want to see them grow, in supporting not
[[Page S4100]]
only American security but our common, global security. Therefore, I
have listed and described five amendments
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment and call up the following amendments en bloc: Senate
amendment Nos. 1788, 1920, 1789, 1919, and 1918; that they be reported
by number; further, that there be 2 hours of debate on the amendments,
equally divided and controlled by me or by my designee and by Senator
Inhofe or his designee; and that, following the use or yielding back of
that time, the Senate vote on the adoption of the amendments, in the
order listed, without intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). Is there objection?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I object; although, I would like to have
the opportunity to look at all five of these amendments to see which
ones would not be consistent with the negotiation that is taking place
right now.
I would like to make sure that everyone understands that, at this
very moment, Democrats and Republicans are looking at a lot of
amendments, as we have done every year for 60 years, to make sure that
we are getting the right amendments in order to make the bill the best
we can.
Now, it will just take a few minutes for me to do this. Until then, I
reserve the right to object. If we have a timing problem on this, I
will object, but it might be that there is one I would like to consider
at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to be recognized in order to
make a comment.
First of all, I have great respect for the Senator. I have worked
with him many times, and we have really gotten quite a bit
accomplished. I know that my friend is sincere in the statements that
he makes, but I find myself in a different position.
I see what has happened in previous administrations, and, during the
last 5 years of the Obama administration, I saw when, in his budget,
the President reduced the military by 25 percent at the same time that
China was increasing its by 83 percent and Russia was increasing its by
34 percent. I am sensitive to this, and it is one of the considerations
we make.
I do object to this amendment, but I am going to work with the
Senator to see which of these might be appropriate and can be sellable
to a majority of the people in the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, Senator Inhofe is right. He and I have
known each other for years and, I think, respect each other. We have
very, very different philosophical leanings, but that does not mean we
cannot respect each other.
All I would say to my friend from Oklahoma is that the function of
the Senate is for 100 Members to determine what is important, not just
a few. What may not be important to me may be important to you, and
what may be important to you may not be important to me. Yet I think,
especially on a bill of this significance, the Members--Democrats and
Republicans--have a right to come forward and bring forth amendments.
If I don't like an amendment and you have brought forth the amendment,
it is likely I am going to vote against it, and you are going to vote
against my amendment. I get it. It is called democracy. It is the
process we go through here. I just cannot understand why we are not
voting on amendments. When we get back, I would rather see a process
take place whereby dozens of amendments are brought up and debated and
voted up or voted down. That is what, I think, this Senate is supposed
to stand for.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for one more
comment so I may address that, Senator Reed and I are both in
agreement. We have been wanting amendments. We have been asking on a
daily basis--now for about 2 months--for Members to bring their
amendments down so we can consider amendments. We are in the process
now of seeing which amendments we are able to bring up that we might
have reached an agreement on. We are doing that. It is not an easy
process, and it does take a little bit of time. Yet I am hopeful that
we will have amendments. I anticipate we will.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend, Jack Reed
is a good friend of mine, and I know that you and he are working hard
and well together. Yet you are two Senators, and there are 98 others of
us, and on what you two may agree to be important or not to be
important others may disagree.
All I am saying to the Senator is to let people bring up their
amendments. If the Senator doesn't like it and I don't like it, we will
vote against it. I just don't know why we are restricting amendments in
a Senate which is supposed to be one of the great deliberative bodies
in the world. The world is supposed to look at us, but they are not
looking well at us when a few people determine what is going to be
voted on or not.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would respond by saying that I don't
take issue with that, but I will say that we all remember what happened
a year ago when this bill was up. One of our Members objected to all
amendments coming up, and, as a result, no one got an amendment up.
That isn't happening this year because the individuals who were
opposed to amendments last year are no longer opposed to amendments. We
are just trying to--with the understanding and the realization that
things are done in the Senate with unanimous consent and that one
person has a lot of power to stop a lot of other people, we don't want
that to happen. We want to encourage amendments, and we are going to
try to consider as many as we can.
Mr. SANDERS. I would simply say to my friend, he is quite right--
unanimous consent gives every Member a lot of power, and I do not want
to be objectionable, but I feel very strongly on this issue, and I hope
we can work on something.
Mr. INHOFE. Thank you.
Mr. SANDERS. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
S. 4049
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to continue this
debate about the Armed Services bill we are considering on the floor
today, and I would just note for my colleagues that I know that it is a
general practice, but my colleague from Vermont is bringing up a very
big, important point about amendments, and that is that the NDAA is
marked up in a secret, closed-door session. It is not like we all have
a bright light, and we know what is in there. In fact, they held the
language for 3 weeks and then now, all of a sudden, thrust it onto the
Senate floor and then don't want us to offer any amendments.
In my case, I am objecting, along with the Senator from Vermont, as
to a major shift in policy that is in this proposal that shifts money
away from the Department of Energy and onto nuclear weapons, where we
didn't even vote on it. We didn't vote on it, and members of the Energy
and Natural Resources Committee are in disagreement about this, the
fact that we weren't consulted and that it is basically raiding
jurisdiction.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a letter signed by myself, Senator Lamar Alexander, Senator Heinrich,
Senator Cassidy, Senator Wyden, Senator Barrasso, Senator Risch, and
Senator Sanders from Vermont.
We object. We are members of the committee. We are very senior
members of the committee. We understand the DOE budget. We understand
the DOE responsibilities. We don't think it is right for somebody to
mark up, in a closed-door session, in the middle of the National
Defense Act, a taking of money, basically neutering the Secretary of
Energy, basically saying: You only have half of your budget because we
are going to dictate over at the Department of Defense exactly how you
are going to spend those dollars.
So that is a big power grab by a very few people and certainly
deserves a vote by the U.S. Senate. It certainly deserves a bright
light by the American people because not only are we talking about this
from the perspective of the taking away DOE resources and
[[Page S4101]]
focus from the Secretary of Energy, we are also talking about putting
into the hands of the Department of Defense what has been civilian
oversight--civilian oversight of the production of our nuclear weapons.
So why is this so important, who is in charge of DOE's budget? Well,
I think the Secretary of Energy is. I think he comes before Congress. I
think he discusses with Congress what that budget is. I think he talks
and we talk and we review his nominees and the work they do on this.
For me, in the State of Washington, we have the largest nuclear
cleanup site in the entire world. So cleaning up Hanford from the
plutonium production that was done for our efforts in World War II is a
massive, multibillion-dollar-a-year cleanup. I wish it wasn't that
much, but it is, and it has been for decades.
And people constantly look at that $2 billion and think: We can shave
some of those dollars off. I am here to tell you, you can't, not with
leaky tanks leaking into the groundwater and moving toward the Columbia
River--no. We cannot have people taking half of the DOE budget and then
basically deciding that the Department of Defense is going to decide
what to do with it.
Hanford isn't the only site. There are other cleanup sites--Paducah.
There are still things to do with Savannah River. There are cleanup
sites all over the United States.
To, in the NDAA bill, basically, preclude us from even discussing
such a major policy change that is not supported by the Secretary of
Energy, not supported by the chairwoman of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee or the ranking member, Senator Manchin, whose
amendment we would like to seek a vote on--so I submit to the Record
this letter from my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee also objecting to this language
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, July 1, 2020.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles Schumer,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Jim Inhofe,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer,
Chairman Inhofe, and Ranking Member Reed: As the Senate
considers the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA), we write to express our opposition to the
inclusion of controversial and far reaching provisions that
would fundamentally alter the Department of Energy's (DOE)
responsibilities for the nuclear weapons budget.
As members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, we write in support of Secretary Brouillette's
June 29, 2020 letter to Chairman Inhofe and share his
concerns that provisions in the Senate NDAA bill undermine
DOE's ability to meet its mission goals and responsibility
for maintaining the viability of the nation's nuclear
deterrent.
As currently written, the Senate NDAA bill would strip the
Secretary of Energy of the ability to manage some of the most
sensitive national security programs that account for almost
half of the Department's budget. Such changes could impede
accountability and Congressional oversight, as well as
imperil future funding for other critical DOE
responsibilities such as promoting scientific and
technological innovation, managing our National Laboratories,
sponsoring basic research in the physical sciences, and
ensuring cleanup of the nation's nuclear weapons complex.
Sweeping changes impacting civilian control of our nation's
nuclear weapons programs should only be made in consultation
and coordination with the committee of jurisdiction in an
open and transparent manner. The changes included in the
Senate NDAA bill have been met with opposition from the Trump
Administration, former Secretaries of Energy, recent NNSA
Administrators, and the Congressional Advisory Panel on the
Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise.
We therefore request that the provisions be removed from
the pending bill or that the Senate be allowed to vote on the
relevant amendments filed by Ranking Member Manchin.
Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell, Martin Heinrich, Ron Wyden, Mazie K.
Hirono, Bernie Sanders, Lamar Alexander, Bill Cassidy,
John Barrasso, James Risch.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, what else is at stake?
Also, at stake are our National Laboratories. Our National
Laboratories do incredibly hard work for us. I know what ours does in
the Pacific Northwest because they are an expert on cybersecurity. They
are an expert on detection. They are an expert on terrorism and
fighting terrorism.
So now, all of a sudden, you are going to let the National Nuclear
Security Agency decide what that budget looks like because they are
going to take more money from it.
Now is not the time to allow the Department of Defense, without our
oversight that we are sent here to give, to decide what this budget
should look like. That is not their role and responsibility.
So the fact that somebody thinks they can stick this in, in a closed-
door session, and then jam us, without a vote of this body to consider
such a major policy change, is appalling.
Now, I know that people tried to do this 2 years ago or a year and a
half ago and basically got taken out by the House of Representatives,
but that is no excuse for doing it now. People jam so many things into
this bill. Last time, they jammed in basically the relicensing of a
hydroelectric dam. Basically, written into this for the chairman was
the revision that said they no longer have to be regulated by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Well, I can tell you, there are lots of people in the State of
Washington who would probably love to know that the hydro system didn't
have to go through FERC relicensing, but they did have to go through
FERC relicensing.
And so the fact that that was in a panoply of things stuffed into
NDAA, in the final negotiation in the House, they couldn't get it out.
So we are being held hostage one more time on the NDAA bill for bad
policy that has not had the broad discussion of the U.S. Senate.
So I would say to my colleagues: If you care about nuclear waste
cleanup, if you care about the agenda of our national laboratories--and
I will tell you, you think people are threatening you right now? People
are threatening us on cybersecurity. People don't stick a sub into your
waters anymore, taunting you or flying aircraft overhead; they
basically put software tools into your powerplants, into your military
sites. We need our National Laboratories to do their job, not have the
money subverted by some agency that we don't see, they don't come to
us--they go to a few Members. They go to the Senator from Oklahoma, but
they don't come see us and talk about their agenda. They basically just
want an increase, and instead of going through the normal legislative
process, they basically are trying to short circuit both appropriators
and authorizers on this important issue.
So if people are proud of that language, if they think it stands,
they think it is the right policy, then they should let us have a vote.
They should let us have a discussion of who is in charge of DOE's
budget because, I guarantee you, most Americans think it is the
Secretary of Energy and not a
five-, seven-member subcabinet level over at DOD.
This is appalling, and it has to stop.
Tribute to Joel Connelly
Mr. President, if I could, while I am out here on the floor, pay
tribute to one of the most iconic newspapers in the State of
Washington, the Seattle P-I, and one of its noted journalists who is
retiring this week after 47 years writing for the organization.
This newspaper, which was part of the Northwest history for decades,
finally stopped the print edition several years ago, but it has still
been online. Joel Connelly has been an icon of the Northwest, writing
about Presidents for decades; writing about Northwest policy, such as
the outdoors; writing about the relationship, on international issues,
particularly with Canada.
Joel said it best. Once he said about his employer, the P-I: ``We do
our best to inform you, to intrigue you, amuse you, and at times get
under your skin.''
I miss those days of journalism today, where someone has so much
knowledge and information about our region, about politics in general,
about society that they help keep us informed and engaged.
[[Page S4102]]
Joel once interviewed Bill Clinton on Air Force One and obviously
interviewed many Presidents--both Bushes, Clinton, Obama.
He once was a Pulitzer Prize runner-up for his coverage of the
Washington Public Power Supply System, and obviously he covered Hanford
issues, which I just talked about many times, and many northern border
issues.
He probably was best known in his coverage of Idaho Governor Cecil
Andrus and wrote a book about him and the many fights that happened in
the Northwest on land issues for many, many years.
So I can't even begin to explain what it will be like without Joel
Connelly at the helm of political national commentary for us in the
Pacific Northwest.
Nobody sharper. Nobody keener. Nobody more experienced. Nobody who
struck more fear in me when I had to get on the phone with him because
chances were he knew the issue even better than I did, and I had been
pretty studied on it, but that is what you get after 47 years in
journalism.
So I wish him all the best, but I also hope his retirement is a call
for all of us to remember how important journalism really is; that the
tool and trade of people who basically cover these policies, understand
them, and help give commentary in their columns or in their journalism
and oversight is what helps us keep our democracy here in the United
States.
So, Joel, I know you will be up there on Whidbey Island and you will
be watching us from afar. I know we are not done hearing the last of
you, but I know we have heard a great commentary for 47 years of the P-
I and your comments, and we greatly appreciate it
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the United States, Mexico, and
Canada launched a new chapter in our historic partnership with entry
into force of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement--USMCA for short.
Thanks to the decisive leadership of President Trump, the USMCA will
open the door for robust economic growth.
At the same time, regarding his decisive leadership as President,
this isn't an issue just now. This is something the President said in
2016; that the NAFTA was the worst trade agreement that we have had,
and he was going to get rid of it or revise it. Most Presidents run on
a platform. They may not serve on that platform. This President is
serving on that platform, and today the USMCA going into force for the
first time is absolute proof of this President keeping his promises and
getting the job done.
He also needs to compliment and thank Ambassador Lighthizer, the
negotiator on this whole agreement.
The USMCA brings to bear, then, a trilateral trade agreement that
will lift prosperity across North America. The USMCA paves the way for
freer markets and fairer trade. It replaces NAFTA and puts America in a
better position to expand market access for U.S. workers, farmers, and
businesses.
Specifically, the USMCA modernizes rules of origin for autos,
sanitary and phytosanitary standards, intellectual property rules,
digital trade, financial services, customs, labor, environment, and
more.
Some of these issues I just mentioned weren't even around 30 years
ago when NAFTA was negotiated. Modernizing NAFTA into the 21st century
was the right thing to do.
As we enter into this agreement, the world is navigating uncertain
times, as we know. The unprecedented public health crisis has turned
the economy upside down. Now, more than ever, our farmers, businesses,
and workers need and deserve certainty that they can count on us to
turn things around and accelerate economic recovery.
As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over
trade, I will be keeping a close eye on the implementation of this
historic trade agreement. I want to ensure that any kinks that come up
are ironed out with appropriate flexibility, taking into consideration
unforeseen circumstances from the pandemic, such as automakers and
others who were shut down or repurposed operations to produce medical
equipment, and that is just one example. I also will keep watch to hold
accountable all stakeholders and ensure full compliance with the trade
agreement.
Now more than ever, North America must work together to harvest the
fruits of the USMCA. That is how we can foster investment, innovation,
and job creation for the 478 million people who live in these 3
countries.
The U.S. International Trade Commission estimated that the USMCA
within 5 years would raise U.S. GDP by $68 billion, forecasting 176,000
new jobs in the United States. That is music to the ears for everyone
in America who has been hard hit by the pandemic's economic fallout.
Farmers in my State have enjoyed one of the best planting seasons in
decades. However, our livestock, poultry, and biofuels producers have
faced catastrophic disruption to their operations since the virus swept
across the country. Iowa is the Nation's No. 1 producer of pork, eggs,
and corn. Our economy depends on exports to grow and for our economy to
flourish.
American farmers depend on exports to pay their bills and earn a
living. Farmers simply want to grow and produce for the marketplace,
not for government bailouts.
Today's inauguration of the USMCA offers a bright ray of hope for
North America to plow forward and to plant the seeds for a robust
economic recovery.
With every trade issue that comes, it is always important to remember
what President Kennedy said in his Presidency about trade legislation
and the benefits of it--that if it benefits one country, it benefits
the others. He said that ``a rising tide lifts all boats.''
I am confident the USMCA will steer America's workers, farmers, and
businesses to better days ahead.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
____________________