[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 21, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4310-S4321]
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 senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
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.
Coronavirus
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, our country faces the greatest health
threat in 100 years and the greatest economic crisis in 70 years, but
here in the Republican-led Senate, you would
[[Page S4311]]
hardly know it. Over the past several months, even as COVID-19 surged
through the country once again, even as our States hit new records of
infections and hospitalizations, the Republican majority in the Senate
dithered and delayed on the next phase of major emergency relief.
In April, May, and June, Democrats tried to jolt the Senate into
action, but almost every time we tried to pass much needed legislation
by average Americans, our Republican colleagues objected. Unemployment
claims reached 50 million. The number of cases topped 3.8 million as
the virus resurged over the past several weeks, and more than 140,000
Americans have died. Still, Senate Republicans wanted to, in the words
of their leader, ``hit the pause button'' and ``assess the conditions''
in the country before providing any more relief. The country was
burning, and Senate Republicans, led by Leader McConnell, said: ``Let's
wait a little longer and see how this goes.''
Like President Trump, they were hoping it would go away, ignoring all
of the scientific evidence but paying obeisance to the hard right,
which didn't want to spend money no matter what the cost to America.
Now it seems our Republican friends have finally found the motivation
to do another emergency relief bill. Even they, with their heads still
half in the sand, have to see the crisis the country is in. But instead
of working with Democrats in either the Senate or the House, Leader
McConnell has decided to write the bill behind the closed doors of his
office--the same partisan, one-side-only process that has failed time
and again to produce successful legislation in the Senate.
McConnell talked about how the Senate led in the last three bills. I
would add a word to that. It was Senate Democrats that led. Republicans
put a small, stingy, corporate-oriented proposal before the Senate. We
said no, and they were forced to add provisions friendly to workers and
average American families. That is what happened. History knows that.
Yesterday, Leader McConnell, once again, called for the same spirited
bipartisanship that helped us pass the CARES Act. Well, Leader
McConnell, writing a bill in your own office without any input from
Democrats, dropping it on the floor, and demanding that Democrats
support it is no one's idea of bipartisanship. You can't fool the
American people with these facile words that just don't ring true.
Even worse, the Republican proposal appears destined to fall
drastically short of what is required. From all indications, the bill
will prioritize corporate special interests over workers and Main
Street businesses. It will not provide hazard pay for essential
workers. It will not provide new funding to State, local, and Tribal
governments or enough investments in communities of color that have
been ravaged by the virus.
Enhanced unemployment benefits will expire at the end of the month.
According to reports, the Republican bill will not do nearly enough to
aid the 20 to 30 million Americans currently unemployed. We have heard
Republicans debate a credit for Americans who are going back to work,
but those are the very same Americans who will be getting a salary
again. What about Americans who remain unemployed and actually need the
help?
The moratorium on evictions expires this week. According to reports,
the Republican bill will not do anything for the millions of Americans
who can't afford the rent and could get kicked out of their apartments.
After all the hemming and hawing and the delay, which cost America so
much--months of delay--it appears the next Republican proposal on COVID
will not even come close to meeting the moment.
It has become clear over the last few weeks that the reason our
Republican colleagues have taken so long to put even this inadequate
proposal together is because they are paralyzed by internal divisions
among themselves and by division with the President.
According to reports in the press, even after all these months that
our Republican colleagues spent ``assessing'' the conditions in the
country, the White House and Senate Republicans are starkly divided
about what to do. The Trump administration is fixated on a payroll tax
cut, an idea that will not only harm those who rely on Social Security
but will do nothing for the tens of millions of Americans who lost
their jobs during the crisis. Many of my Republican colleagues aren't
too keen on that idea, with good reason. Yet it may still be in
McConnell's proposal because he and the other Republicans are afraid to
tell President Trump no, even when they know he is wrong.
Recent reports also suggest that the administration is trying to
block billions of dollars from going to the States in order to improve
their testing and contact tracing capabilities. Can you imagine?
Republicans are arguing about whether to block funds for testing and
tracing, the two most important tools in our arsenal to manage this
crisis right now. It is amazing.
Americans are hanging their heads in some degree of shame at the
President's actions because every other developed country--just about
every other one in Europe and East Asia--is doing much better than us
because they have leadership and their leadership provided, above all,
testing and tracing. This President refuses to do it, and the
Republicans say nothing. They are so afraid of President Trump, even
when they know he is wrong. Even when millions of lives are at stake,
even when the economy is at stake, they just are deathly silent.
What do they end up doing? Well, the one thing that unites Trump and
all the Republicans is pleasing corporate interests. So if reports are
accurate, the Republicans are doing just that. They are pleasing
corporate interests, not workers and families and small businesses, and
that will not get the job done.
For 60 days, Senate Democrats have been clear about where we should
start the negotiations. The Heroes Act passed by the House provides
crucial relief for education funding, for hospitals and medical
workers, for essential workers on the frontlines, and for State and
local governments.
Right now Republicans seem to want to play chicken with pandemic
relief and string everyone along with a bill and a process we all know
is doomed to fail.
I urge all of my Republican colleagues to abandon their one-party,
one-Chamber approach before it is too late and immediately begin
bipartisan, bicameral negotiations on the next round of COVID
legislation.
The problems, of course, don't end with the Republican Senate. We are
living through one of the greatest failures of Presidential leadership
in our country's history.
Do you hear that, Donald Trump? You have created one of the greatest
failures of Presidential leadership in our country's entire history and
the history books will record it that way. President Trump cannot even
model good behavior and consistently encourage Americans to wear a
mask.
When the White House coronavirus briefings resume, President Trump
should not take the podium. Every time President Trump takes the podium
at one of these briefings, he is a threat to public health. Even after
140,000 lives were lost to COVID, the President claimed again on Sunday
that this disease will disappear. It has been over 6 months since the
start of the virus, and this Trump administration still lacks a
national testing strategy. The administration ordered hospitals to hide
their coronavirus data from the CDC.
The President is pressuring schools to reopen this fall without the
necessary resources or guidance to keep our kids safe.
Remember, President Trump, you pushed Republican Governors to open
their States too early, and look at what happened. You are now making
the same mistake with schools. COVID surged through those States that
reopened too quickly, and many now are being forced to reimpose
restrictions. We cannot repeat those mistakes when it comes to the
schools and safety of our kids and our families.
The question looms over this Chamber: When will our Republican
friends stand up to President Trump and tell him to get his act
together--when push comes to shove, when people's health and even lives
are at stake? It seems that Senate Republicans are always too timid,
too afraid to buck the President.
[[Page S4312]]
Will they stand up and tell him he is wrong to block more funding for
testing and tracing? Will they tell him to stop ignoring the signs,
trying to hide the data, and undermining medical experts like Dr.
Fauci? Most of all, most importantly, will our Republican colleagues
finally step up to the plate and do what is right--work with us in a
bipartisan way to provide desperately needed relief to the American
people?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Remembering John Lewis
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, John Lewis was a great American, but
there was a humility in his heart that showed his greatness even more,
and he gave speeches that stirred a nation. Who among us can forget his
trademark speech of explaining how, as a young man, growing up on a
farm, he practiced public speaking to an audience of chickens? He told
that story over and over again.
John Lewis used to say, ``People come up to me in the airport, and
they say, `I'm going to cry. I'm going to pass out.' ''
John's reply was, ``Please, don't pass out; I'm not a doctor.''
John Lewis was a healer and a balm for troubled souls. I was struck
by an article in the Atlanta newspaper that talked about an incident
that occurred in January of 2009.
A former Ku Klux Klan member, Elwin Wilson, confessed to being part
of the White mob that had bloodied John Lewis and other Freedom Riders
in Rock Hill, SC, nearly 48 years before. Lewis noted in his 2012 book
``Across That Bridge'' that Wilson was the first of his attackers to
apologize for his actions. Wilson traveled to Washington a short while
later to meet Lewis face-to-face and ask for forgiveness.
``Without a moment of hesitation, I looked back at him and said, `I
accept your apology,' '' John Lewis wrote.
This was a great testament to the power of love to overcome hatred.
John Lewis had another incident that I thought was worth mentioning
this morning, as well, that was another example of the forgiveness.
Kevin Murphy wasn't born until a year after John Lewis was knocked
unconscious by a blow from a wooden Coca-Cola crate in 1961 after the
Freedom Riders pulled into the bus station in Montgomery, AL. As the
city's police chief in 2013, Mr. Murphy wanted to issue an apology for
the officers who declined to step in as a White mob descended on Lewis
and his bus-riding colleagues. So, when Lewis and other dignitaries
assembled at Montgomery's First Baptist Church to commemorate the
event, Murphy walked to the microphone and offered Lewis what was long
a symbol of oppression for many African Americans--his police badge.
Murphy told Lewis he hoped it would serve as a token of reconciliation.
``I often said, when I started going up through the ranks, that if I
had a chance--if I ever became police chief--that I was going to try to
right that wrong,'' said Murphy during an interview--now the deputy
sheriff for Montgomery County, AL. He went on to say: ``A lot of my
peers didn't want to talk about it. They didn't want to face the
truth.''
Because of that gesture, John Lewis and Kevin Murphy struck up a
friendship, and John Lewis invited Murphy to the White House to meet
President Barack Obama. Then the two of them, both Lewis and Murphy,
traveled to Ireland and Northern Ireland to talk with Catholics and
Protestants about bridging the religious divide.
Murphy said he was awed by Lewis's capacity to walk through the world
with an open heart. You can just tell, with everything he had been
through, that he wasn't a bitter man. He truly had tried to put a lot
of what happened--the injustices--behind him. That was John Lewis.
It is a miracle that he didn't die when angry Klansmen and their
sympathizers torched the bus that carried a young John Lewis and other
Freedom Riders near Anniston, AL, in 1961. It is amazing that he
survived the Edmund Pettus Bridge, on Bloody Sunday in 1965, when the
Alabama State troopers nearly beat him to death. Clearly, there was a
purpose in his life that had to be served.
I had the honor to serve with Congressman Lewis in the House for 10
years, and I called him my friend for nearly 40 years. For a man who
had witnessed the depths of hatred and despair, John Lewis was one of
the most hopeful people I had ever met. He once said the only time he
came close to giving up was after the murder of Robert Kennedy in 1968.
Martin Luther King had been assassinated 2 months earlier. So when
Bobby Kennedy died, it seemed for a few weeks that any hope for justice
and equality had died too. That is what John Lewis said. Yet he didn't
allow despair to overcome him. He didn't spend his life hoping for
better; he spent his life making the world better. He still had hope,
and he had a profound belief in the future of this Nation.
I was reminded this weekend of a story that captured so well John
Lewis's humility and his enormous redemptive influence on America. It
was January 20, 2009--a day I will never forget. Barack Obama was sworn
in to be the first African-American President of the United States. As
he was leaving the podium, John Lewis stepped forward to the new
President and asked him to sign his inauguration program. The President
hesitated, pulled out a pen, and wrote the following inscription:
``Because of you, John. Barack Obama.'
John Lewis was an icon of the American civil rights movement. If he
had confined his life's work to only ending racial injustice, he would
have still been in the pantheon of heroes, but his vision and faith
were bigger than justice for just one group. His commitment was to
genuine democracy and equality. He said so many times: ``You cannot
build a wall when it comes to equality; it must be equality for all and
not for some.'' He told us: ``We must be headlights, not taillights.''
For John, being a headlight meant going out ahead and shining a light
so that we could see the people living in the cold shadows of
discrimination and bring them into the warmth of America's promise.
He challenged us always to expand our concepts of justice and
equality--as he said, ``to respect the dignity and worth of every human
being, Black or White, Latino or Asian, immigrant to Native American,
gay, straight, Muslims, Christians, Jews.'' John spoke for all of them.
How many times did he tell us: ``We are one people, one family; we live
in one house''?
One of the great injustices for our times was overly harsh drug laws.
It was a measure passed in the 1980s and 1990s that disproportionately
harmed people and communities of color. Many of us worked for years to
replace those biased laws. John Lewis was deeply committed to our
cause.
About 2 years ago, a proposal was offered that would have shifted the
focus of our efforts and really walked away from a commitment to
criminal sentencing reform. It was John Lewis who stepped up. His
steadfast insistence made a difference, and it resulted in having the
FIRST STEP Act being signed into law.
Rosa Parks was one of John Lewis's heroes. When she died in October
2005, her body lay in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. Tens of
thousands of people filed past to pay their respects to this great
heroine of justice who had the courage to refuse to sit in the
segregated portion of that bus. They came all night and all the next
morning.
Late at night, John Lewis walked quietly into the Rotunda. He waited
in line with every other mourner. Accompanying him were a handful of
blind men and women who were using white canes. That was John Lewis,
showing the way by quiet and powerful example. He showed us that the
promise of America is the promise of dignity for everyone. In John's
eyes, none of us is free until all of us are free.
Born in rural Troy, AL, the son and grandson of sharecroppers, he saw
the injustice of Jim Crow even when he was a young boy. When he was 15,
he discovered a man who became an iconic leader and his personal
mentor. At that age, John bought a comic book entitled ``Martin Luther
King and the Montgomery Story.'' It was 14 pages long, and it cost him
a dime, but it touched his heart and inspired his life. That thin dime
had yielded arguably the greatest return on investment of any purchase
in the history of our Nation.
Now we are asked, how should we honor this man?
[[Page S4313]]
It was a little over 10 years ago that I joined the Faith & Politics
pilgrimage and made a trip to Alabama. It was a weekend that John had
led for so many years wherein we visited the shrines of the American
civil rights movements. We saw the monument and tribute to Rosa Parks,
and we went to the church where those little girls were killed in
Birmingham. Unfortunately, my schedule was such that I had to leave
before we actually visited Selma, which was to occur at 12 noon on
Sunday.
I went to John and said: I am sorry I can't be there, as I have
always wanted to be on that Selma bridge and to hear your story in your
own words.
He said: You have got to come. We will make a special trip. I will
meet you in the lobby of the hotel at 6:30 in the morning, and we will
drive over and see it. I will take you on that tour.
How could I possibly say no?
I said: I will be there in the lobby. Let's go.
And off we went.
We talked all the way over about his memories of what led to that
march in Selma. He was the one who told me personally how Federal Judge
Frank Johnson had often been overlooked but that if it were not for his
rulings that had allowed that march to go forward, it might never have
happened.
It was an inspirational visit for me to be there in the early Sunday
morning hours on that misty day, standing at the end of the Edmund
Pettus Bridge, right next to John Lewis. He pointed down, just at the
foot of the bridge, and said:
That's where I fell. That's where they hit me.
There is a lot of talk about what to do next to honor John Lewis.
There has been talk of renaming the Edmund Pettus Bridge in his honor.
I am not opposed to that. I think that humble bridge is becoming a
defining piece of American history. Yet John Lewis did not risk his
life on Bloody Sunday for the right to rename a bridge; he risked his
life for the right of every man and woman in America to vote and to
have a voice in our democracy. John said so many times that the right
to vote is precious, that it is almost sacred, and that it is the most
powerful, nonviolent tool we have.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been weakened and whittled down by
recent Supreme Court and other court decisions and by the actions of
this Department of Justice. In December, the House of Representatives
voted to restore the Voting Rights Act. John Lewis presided over the
U.S. House of Representatives on the day of that important vote. That
bill to restore the Voting Rights Act has been sitting on Senator
McConnell's desk for more than 225 days.
Words of praise for John Lewis are fine, but they are not enough.
This Senate should honor the life and the sacrifice of John Lewis by
voting to restore the Voting Rights Act. There are some who are trying
mightily to diminish American's faith in our democracy and our
elections. We can honor John Lewis by protecting the right to vote.
Let's do it and do it now.
Let me close with another story I learned about John Lewis this
weekend. We have seen those iconic photos of the 23-year-old John Lewis
as he led those marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965--a
young man, dressed in a tan trench coat, with a backpack. John Lewis
had been arrested before for nonviolent protests. He just had a hunch
that he was going to be arrested again that day and jailed, so in his
backpack he had his toothbrush, toothpaste, an apple, an orange, and
two books.
One book was ``The Seven Storey Mountain'' by the Catholic monk and
mystic Thomas Merton. That book spoke about the power of hope to
transform abstract principles into realities that, one day, if
necessary, we would be willing to sacrifice and even die for.
On that day, the other book in John Lewis's backpack was entitled
``The American Political Tradition.'' It opened with a quote from the
writer John Dos Passos. Here is what it read: ``In times of change and
danger when there is quicksand of fear under men's reasoning, a sense
of continuity with generations gone before can stretch like a lifeline
across the scary present.''
John Lewis was the bridge that connected the civil rights generation
with what we see today in the streets of America--again, a common
effort to make sure we fulfill the promise of equality for everyone.
John Lewis was heartened by the Black Lives Matter movement. His last
public appearance was here in Washington in the area they have reserved
for speaking their minds about this important issue.
In this time of change and loss, may we honor the legacy of John
Lewis and find within us the hope and courage to continue his work, as
he reminded us that the cause of justice and equality is the cause of a
lifetime.
Protests
Madam President, let me start by saying that there is no place for
violence or vandalism in the exercise of any constitutional right. The
use of force against peaceful protesters or members of law enforcement
in the reasonable exercise of their responsibilities is unacceptable.
In recent days, President Trump has indicated that he wants to send
Federal agents into cities, including Chicago, to conduct policing
activities that are traditionally handled by local law enforcement.
The Chicago Tribune has reported that the Department of Homeland
Security is developing a plan to send an additional 150 agents to
Chicago as soon as this weekend, although details have not been made
public as to what they are going to do.
I join Governor J.B. Pritzker of Illinois and Chicago Mayor Lightfoot
in strongly urging the Trump administration to refrain from taking any
action that resembles what has occurred in Portland, OR. Any
involvement by Federal law enforcement in community policing activity
must be conducted in coordination with and with the approval of local
law enforcement officials. In this time of heightened tension, we
cannot have Federal law enforcement operating at cross-purposes with
local leaders.
In recent days, the Trump administration has deployed Federal law
enforcement agents in the streets of Portland, OR. They have arrived
without any visible identifying information. These Federal agents have
reportedly used excessive force against peaceful protestors and
detained residents in unmarked vehicles. Such conduct is unacceptable
anywhere in the United States and certainly unacceptable in the city of
Chicago and the State of Illinois.
I am joining Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon this week in introducing
legislation to prevent President Trump from taking this action in
Chicago or any other American city. The bill we jointly are offering
would require Federal officers to wear identifying insignia. There is
no place in America for secret police.
The bill also would limit Federal forces to the immediate vicinity of
Federal property unless there has been a written request by local
leadership or the Insurrection Act has been invoked. There is no
question that the Federal Protective Service and other Federal law
enforcement does have the responsibility for Federal facilities, but
what we have seen in Portland has gone far beyond that location and
into the community at large.
Our bill would also prohibit arrests or apprehensions in unmarked
vehicles and render any arrests made in violation of this act unlawful.
How in the world can we explain that in the year 2020, the Trump
administration would follow the example of Vladimir Putin in his
invasion of Ukraine with these so-called green monsters, who would
arrive without any insignia or any indication of whom they were
fighting for? These little green men turned out to be agents of the
Russian Government. We don't need anything like that--even close to
it--in the United States.
Finally, the bill would require notice to the public in the event of
crowd control-related deployments that includes information about the
agencies involved, the number of personnel, and information related to
requests and other details. That is what you come to expect in a
democracy.
In February 2017, Senator Tammy Duckworth and I sent President Trump
a letter suggesting how he could help, how the Federal Government could
come forward to give us assistance in fighting crime and gun violence
in the city of Chicago. The letter noted that public safety is
primarily a
[[Page S4314]]
local responsibility, but the Federal Government can be a partner in
public safety efforts alongside local officials, law enforcement, and
community stakeholders.
We recommended the administration take steps to assist local
violence-prevention efforts, including enhancing Department of Justice
programs that improve community policing; directing the Department of
Justice to promote mentoring and job-training programs for youth and
the formerly incarcerated; improving mentoring and violence-prevention
initiatives and boosting funding for recidivism-reduction programs;
directing the Department of Justice to abide by its commitment to help
implement policing reforms recommended by the Department's Civil Rights
Division; closing the gaps in the FBI gun background check system and
in Federal firearm laws that enable straw purchasers and gun
traffickers to flood Chicago's streets with illicit guns; prioritizing
career and youth training programs to address lack of economic
opportunity; and redirecting resources that are devoted to the
construction of his border wall to making our cities and communities
across the United States safer. That is the way the Trump
administration can show that it really cares about law enforcement in
the city of Chicago and across this Nation and can help us move forward
in reducing the incidence of violence.
I join Mayor Lightfoot in making it clear to President Trump that we
have no need and will not tolerate tyranny by the Federal Government on
the streets of Chicago.
If the President truly wants to cooperate with law enforcement
efforts, we can find ways to find common ground and make it a safer
city together, but sending in secret police with unmarked vehicles to
snatch people off the streets is not only unacceptable, it is un-
American
Coronavirus
Madam President, I listened carefully to Senator McConnell this
morning as he came to the floor and talked about the situation we
currently face.
Make no mistake--we are still in the midst of this pandemic. COVID-19
is taking its toll on many parts of America. In the last week, more
than 40 different States that decided to open their economies early
have found that it was not a wise decision; that, in fact, many more
people are becoming infected and dying. Over 140,000 have died in the
United States so far, and over 3 million have been infected. I am
afraid that there will be more to follow. I wish that were not the
case. The question is, What can we do?
First, what can we do when it comes to COVID-19?
I listened the other day when Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National
Institutes of Health was interviewed, and he and Dr. Collins have both
been asked, why does it take so long to get results when people go in
for testing for COVID-19? Well, there is no explanation, and there is
no good reason, and, sadly, that delay is causing a problem. People are
uncertain of their status as to whether they are positive or otherwise
for days on end, waiting for the results of the test.
It is time for us to develop a test that is timely in its results and
widely available to Americans. We cannot realistically open the economy
or even conceivably get our schools back to normal until we have that
testing.
Why, then, does the White House resist putting money in the next
COVID-19 bill for the additional testing that is fundamental to the
question of dealing with the future of this COVID-19 virus?
In addition, I am joining with a number of my colleagues--Kirsten
Gillibrand, Michael Bennet, Chris Coons, and others--in an effort to
try to expand the medical and healthcare personnel necessary to make
sure that we finally bring this virus to bay. We are going to try to
include this in the COVID-19 legislation.
I have legislation that Senator Rubio--a Republican from Florida--and
I have cosponsored that would enhance the training of National Health
Service doctors, nurses, and dentists and medical professionals, mental
health counselors and the like. I think our bill is a step forward
because it provides scholarship assistance to those who will pledge
years of service to the National Health Service Corps once they have
graduated and are licensed. We need that.
Chris Coons is talking about expanding the opportunity for Americans
to step forward and serve their Nation doing contact tracing and other
things that are essential. It would create thousands and thousands of
jobs across the United States at a time when we desperately need them
for a cause that we must conquer ultimately.
These are good things to include in this legislation, but there are
more immediate things on the economic side.
Do you realize that this coming Saturday will be the last day we will
be sending out unemployment checks with the Federal supplement that we
voted on on March 26 in the CARES Act? Yes, this week--before next
Sunday--the last check will be mailed because, you see, our effort
under the CARES Act expires on July 31.
The last payment will be made on Saturday, and then what? And then
what? For the millions of Americans who depend on this Federal
supplement to feed their families, pay their rent, pay their mortgage,
pay the utilities, pay their health insurance premiums--what are they
going to do next?
I listened to Senator McConnell say: Well, we are going to have to
take a look at what that is going to be in the future. Well, let's do
it, Senator, but let's do it quickly. Why have we waited? It has been
since March 26 that we have taken up any legislation on the subject,
and we knew this day would come. Why did we wait until the last minute?
Eight weeks ago, the House of Representatives did their measure, the
Heroes Act--one which I think is sound and principled and I would have
supported. Senator McConnell has come to the floor regularly to say it
is so bad, it is inadequate, it is wrong. Yet we still don't have a
proposal from the Republicans, who are the majority in the Senate,
about what they would do to move forward from this point in the next
COVID-19 bill.
One of the areas that I want to address specifically is the fact that
almost 3 months ago--maybe longer--Senator McConnell came to the floor
and said: There is a redline here. If the COVID-19 bill that we are
considering in the future does not include a provision giving
immunity--legal immunity--to businesses across the United States, it
has no chance. We are not going to consider it.
Well, many of us have a lot of questions about this legal immunity
that Senator McConnell is asking for. What is it? How far does it go?
Well, it turns out there was a memo describing it that was leaked to K
Street. That is where the lobbyists' offices are for special interest
groups in Washington. That memo found its way into a newspaper, and we
have read it, and there are still many unanswered questions.
We have been waiting for months for the language--this redline
immunity language that Senator McConnell insists on. He has described
the number of lawsuits and litigation that have been filed under COVID-
19 as being a tsunami, overwhelming in number. Completely false. The
number of claims that have been filed is few across the United States,
with more than 3 million people who have so far been infected.
Should we have a standard of conduct? Of course we should. The Senate
Judiciary Committee, almost 3 weeks ago, had a hearing where a Texas
businessman came forward and said: I want to do the right thing, but
what standard should I be following here? Something local? Something
State? Something Federal? Give me the standard, and I will do my very
best to live up to it.
Well, that sounded like a good-faith effort by a businessperson who
wants customers and employees to be safe when they come into his
establishment. He has every right to ask for that standard, and we have
every responsibility to provide it based not on the politics of the
moment but on public health, on medical certainty, and on science. That
is what the standard should be drawn to, and the notion that any
standard published by anyone--whether by a town, a city, a township, a
county, a State, whatever it might be--is sufficient to absolve any
business from any liability goes way too far. Unfortunately, it is
going to be misused, I am afraid, by those who do not--as this
businessman clearly was not going to do--want to live up to their
responsibility.
[[Page S4315]]
What that Texas businessman said in the Senate Judiciary Committee
gave me a good belief and strong faith that the business community
wants to do the right thing but just wants guidance. It would be
amazing if the CDC and OSHA stepped forward and provided clear,
enforceable standards so that businesses and others across the United
States knew exactly what to do in terms of social distancing and masks
and the like. We need that, but first we need the language from Senator
McConnell. This so-called redline has been promised now for months.
Let's see the details. Let's move forward from there.
The notion of immunity for businesses by any standard that will not
protect employees and customers is unacceptable. It would not make
America safe; it would make the situation even worse.
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. INHOFE. 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.
S. 4049
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we have three groups of speakers having
to do with the vote that will take place at 11:45 a.m., and during that
time I will take the first 15 minutes, and then other Members will have
amendments. The first two amendments will be the Schatz amendment and
then my amendment.
I did have the intention of having more time and was going to kind of
rejoice a little bit because, right now, I understand we are about to
get the information on suggestions that the Secretary of Defense has
after working over a realignment of some of our resources, particularly
in Europe. This is kind of interesting because this is something that
18 years ago this year I tried to do unsuccessfully when Jim Jones was
the Supreme Allied Commander, and we were not able to get it done.
After 18 years, we are going to try it again. I will be speaking about
that issue at 4 p.m. today, and it is a significant one.
Today we are considering amendments to our national defense
authorization bill. We are still working on a managers' package, but as
I previously noted, we have already agreed to more than 140 bipartisan
amendments.
Let me be more specific than that. This is the first time we have
done this. We have had amendments to a lesser degree in the past. This
is the first time that the entire bill has been put together by Members
of the U.S. Senate.
To demonstrate that, the total number of amendments to date, on July
21--including our request prior to coming to the floor--are 818
amendments, of which 440 are Republican and 428 are Democratic. Then
there was the adoption of the substitute amendment. We all remember
what happened then. We had 79 amendments. Those amendments were 34
Democrat and 34 Republican, and 11 were joint. Then the amendments we
adopted with the managers' package included 34 amendments, 15 from
Republicans and 18 from Democrats, as amendments on the second
managers' package numbering 28 and the third package of 34. What I am
saying is that we have had many amendments, and this is the first time
there has been a bill that was entirely written by the Members. That is
why we are at a point now where we can introduce our amendments.
It was important to both Senator Reed and me to try to vote on at
least a few individual amendments. This is something we haven't been
able to do in the last several years. We made this arrangement 2 weeks
ago when we set up some six amendments to be voted on. We will start in
just a few minutes voting on the first two, which will be Senator
Schatz's and mine. I am glad we are doing this within the hour.
The first two amendments will be in relation to Senator Schatz
regarding the 1033 Program. I am strongly opposed to the Schatz
amendment to end the 1033 Program. I hear people talking about this,
and I guess they don't realize what we have done in the State of
Oklahoma. Our sheriffs and law enforcement officers were quite upset
when they heard that it might be in jeopardy. The 1033 Program is an
effective use of the taxpayers' money, taking equipment that is not
being used by the military and allowing it to go into the law
enforcement sector. All kinds of precautions have already been taken,
but we are talking about adding a few more precautions.
The 1033 Program is an effective use of taxpayers' money. In fact,
since the program's creation in 1990, more than $7 billion worth of
vehicles, desks, boots, computers, and more have been responsibly
recycled into law enforcement. This is military equipment that the
military no longer needs and that these agencies would be purchasing
anyway. The equipment is always demilitarized so that it is appropriate
for public safety use.
For years, local law enforcement has been asked to do more with less.
Now they face the liberal cause to defund the police. We need to
continue this transparent, responsive program.
There are a lot of us who have a hard time believing that this is
going on today--that people are trying to play down law enforcement,
trying to say that it is acceptable to break the law. This has never
happened before in America, but that is what we are seeing right now.
That makes this program one that is even more valuable.
Senator Schatz's amendment would place such stringent limitations on
the 1033 Program that it would make the program virtually impossible to
use. It adds only burdensome certification and reporting requirements.
Now, I don't say this critically of Senator Schatz, but he doesn't
like the program, and he wants to kill the program. We are not going to
allow this to happen.
As an example, let's say that a sheriff's office in my State of
Oklahoma or any other State decides that they want to receive sleeping
bags that the Department of Defense no longer needs. Under the Schatz
amendment, that sheriff's office would need to, No. 1, put the request
for sleeping bags out for public comment 30 days prior; second, they
would have to receive approval from local and State authorities; and
third, they would have to file reports on how the sleeping bags would
be used and the kind of training officers will have to receive in order
for them to have these sleeping bags.
Sheriff's offices are too busy working to keep our communities safe
to file numerous reports on sleeping bags that they receive from DOD.
To put it bluntly, I think this amendment would kill the 1033 Program.
Again, this is allowing trained law enforcement officers to use surplus
equipment that is not going to be used and has no value to the
military. This is why both the National Sheriffs' Association and the
National Fraternal Order of Police strongly oppose Senator Schatz's
amendment.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record the recommendations from the National Sheriffs' Association and
the National Fraternal Order of Police
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Sheriffs' Association,
Alexandria, VA, July 14, 2020.
Hon. James Inhofe,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write today to lend the voice of 3,068
sheriffs in support of your amendment #2411 to the National
Defense Authorization Act and in opposition to Senator
Schatz' amendment #2252. The National Sheriffs' Association
has studied this issue thoroughly and determine that your
amendment to prohibit the transfer of bayonets, grenades
(other than flashbang and stun), weaponized tracked combat
vehicles and armed drones is a more thoughtful approach.
Senator Schatz, on the other hand, would stop the 1033
completely thru bureaucratic recordkeeping and reporting
requirements that make it all but impossible to legally
comply. It seems to us that, since taxpayers have bought this
equipment once, to simply throw the equipment away or let it
rust in warehouses is an incredibly wasteful approach to
taxpayers' dollars. The sheriffs implore you to let us
continue to use this equipment to save lives in high water
rescues, deep snow rescues, and hostage situations, which we
do many times a year.
Best regards,
Jonathan Thompson,
Executive Director and CEO.
[[Page S4316]]
____
National Fraternal Order of Police,
Washington, DC, July 15, 2020.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators McConnell and Schumer: I am writing on behalf
of the members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you
of our opposition to S. Amdt. 2252, which will be offered to
S. 4049, the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2021.'' The FOP urges members of the Senate to vote
against this amendment, which would impose sweeping
restrictions on an important surplus equipment program for
State and local law enforcement agencies.
The FOP has long supported the 1033 program, which is a
surplus equipment program administered by the Defense
Logistics Agencies (DLA) and the Law Enforcement Support
Office (LESO) at the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). The
media is constructing an inaccurate narrative that State and
local law enforcement agencies are becoming too
``militarized'' simply because this program is administered
by the DoD.
It is important for Senators to understand that equipment
received through the 1033 program is demilitarized and
repurposed for public safety use. Simply because a piece of
equipment was originally purchased--with our tax dollars--by
the DoD does not make it military equipment. A tool is
defined by its use. The equipment is used to defend and
protect officers and civilians from threats and to carry out
law enforcement and public safety objectives.
There is no data, studies, or other information to support
the contention that State and local law enforcement agencies
are misusing equipment obtained through these Federal grant
programs. For this reason, on behalf of the more than 354,000
members of the Fraternal Order of Police, we urge members of
the Senate to vote against this amendment. If I can provide
any additional information on this issue, please feel free to
contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco in my Washington
office.
Sincerely,
Patrick Yoes,
National President.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I support strong oversight of the 1033
Program, and I understand the intent behind my colleague's amendment.
We want to make sure that the wrong kind of equipment doesn't get into
the hands of people who cannot properly use it, so we have actually put
those modifications into an amendment that will be voted on--the Inhofe
amendment--right after the Schatz amendment, in another 30 minutes from
now.
We are offering an alternative to the Schatz amendment. It would
place a more narrow limitation on the transfer of Department of Defense
equipment, including weapons that cannot be used by State and local
enforcement. We are talking about weapons such as weaponized tracking
vehicles, drones, and lethal grenades. They are not being used anyway,
so let's put them on a list so that they can't be used. That should
satisfy a lot of people's concerns.
It also makes sure that those who receive this equipment get
necessary training on how to protect citizens' constitutional rights
and enhanced training on deescalation techniques.
Defunding and deequipping our law enforcement agencies simply will
not fix anything. Making sure they have the right equipment and right
training will. So I would request that my colleagues vote no on the
Schatz amendment and recognize the value of this program, and vote yes
on my amendment putting new safeguards into the 1033 Program.
With that, Madam President, having used the first 10 minutes of my
time, I yield the next 5 minutes to Senator Cramer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, I thank Chairman Inhofe for his
leadership and eloquence. I rise today in defense of the heroes on the
thin blue line and in opposition to amendment No. 2252 to the National
Defense Authorization Act, which Chairman Inhofe just spoke to.
Over the past few months, America has watched as we have seen a rise
in civil unrest turn into violence in cities all across our country.
Anarchists and domestic terrorists have exploited the peaceful protests
of millions of well-intentioned Americans in order to inflict chaos and
instill fear in our communities. Standing on the frontlines as a shield
from absolute anarchy are our local law enforcement officers who, by
and large, have applied the appropriate force required to protect
American families as well as First Amendment rights.
Unfortunately, some have made the political calculation that they
would benefit more from chaos than from peace. They believe defunding
and abolishing police departments and restricting their access to
protective gear are politically better than an honest look at what our
justice system really needs to succeed.
The 1033 Program has been utilized for years to provide State and
local law enforcement with valuable tools already purchased by the
Federal Government to promote public safety. It would be the epitome of
waste to gut this program and let these valuable tools rust in a pile
or a closet someplace.
As the chairman stated, the police and sheriffs associations oppose
amendment No. 2252, and for good reason. Patrick Yoes of the Fraternal
Order of Police says:
It is important for Senators to understand that equipment
received through the 1033 program is demilitarized and
repurposed for public safety use. Simply because a piece of
equipment was originally purchased with our tax dollars by
the Department of Defense does not make it military
equipment. A tool is defined by its use. The equipment is
used to defend and protect officers and civilians from
threats and to carry out law enforcement and public safety
objectives.
It is stunning to me that some of my colleagues are more appalled at
where law enforcement gets some of their tools and equipment than they
are at the violence that our police officers have to endure every day.
The amendment offered today would bury law enforcement, especially
those from poor communities, in unnecessary bureaucracy, effectively
preventing them from procuring the equipment needed to keep our
communities and citizens safe. This unworkable messaging ploy is born
out of Democrats' belief that vilifying the police will somehow help
them win the election in November.
Thankfully, there is an alternative, amendment No. 2411, offered by
the chairman from Oklahoma. It is a thoughtful, commonsense approach
with a focus on trained prevention and deescalation. It puts the right
equipment in the right hands and places commonsense restrictions on
what transfers can occur, all while saving the taxpayers' money.
I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 2411 and call on the
Members of this body to reject any attempts to prevent these brave men
and women from doing their jobs to safely secure our communities.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Amendment No. 2252 to Amendment No. 2301
(Purpose: To reform Department of Defense transfers of personal
property to law enforcement agencies.)
Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2252, as
provided for under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Schatz] proposes an amendment
numbered 2252 to amendment No. 2301.
Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, Senators Murkowski, Harris, Paul, and I
are offering a bipartisan amendment that proposes reasonable,
commonsense reforms to the 1033 Program. Groups on the left and the
right support it, including the NAACP, the National Urban League,
OurStreets, FreedomWorks, Concerned Veterans for America, the American
Conservative Union, Campaign for Liberty, Americans for Tax Reform, and
the Faith and Freedom Coalition.
People on the left and the right agree that it is time to start to
demilitarize the police.
Our amendment will permanently prohibit the transfer of lethal
military weapons to police departments. This includes heavy ammunition,
bayonets, grenade launchers, explosives, stripped-down tanks, tear gas,
and weaponized drones, among other things. Now, think about that list--
weaponized drones and bayonets. Is anybody under the impression that a
police department needs a weaponized drone or a bayonet?
Our amendment also ensures the police departments can still get
access to
[[Page S4317]]
the equipment that actually helps them to protect the public under the
1033 Program, like first-aid kits, cold-weather gear, flash lights, and
high-water vehicles to respond to flood disasters.
The last month has made clear that weapons of war don't belong in
police departments. Weapons of war have no place in police departments.
We saw the terrifying images of police in military gear storming the
streets, combat vehicles rumbling down city blocks, rounds and rounds
of tear gas shot at peaceful protesters, frequently without warning and
often unprovoked. None of this helps anyone deescalate a crisis.
Our communities are not battlefields. The American people are not
enemy combatants. If our troops can't use tear gas while overseas,
police departments shouldn't use it on American citizens. It is really
that simple.
Across the country, more than 8,000 police departments are
stockpiling weapons of war at no cost. The research plainly shows that
outfitting our police for war does not help to keep the peace.
Militarized equipment actually leads to more violence,
disproportionately impacting communities of color. More militarized law
enforcement is associated with more civilians killed each year by
police.
One study found that when a county goes from having no military
equipment to receiving about $2.5 million worth of weaponry, civilian
deaths at the hands of police are likely to double. To make matters
worse, some police departments are misusing this program by selling,
trading, or pawning equipment. Often, county and city officials don't
even know what weapons and equipment police departments are acquiring
because equipment like armored track vehicles are very expensive to
store and maintain. This program is actually blowing up local budgets
across the country because these tanks are tearing up the streets.
Today, we have an opportunity to fix it. It is not to repeal the 1033
Program outright, which, frankly, I would favor, but this amendment is
the result of a bipartisan compromise wherein we worked with each
Member who was willing to engage--former Governors who served in the
Senate, former prosecutors who served in the Senate, Members of both
parties--and they specifically came to our office and said: You know,
that specific item has an important civilian use, could you exempt it
from the list of prohibited transfers? We worked and we worked and we
worked, and this is the compromise measure. By passing this amendment,
we can prevent the abuse of a 1033 Program, and we can limit the amount
of dangerous weapons in local precincts.
To be clear, reforming this program is not the only thing we need to
do. No single amendment will end police brutality and violence, and
alleviating the deep mistrust between police and the communities they
are sworn to protect is not easy work, and it will not be solved by one
vote. This amendment is meaningful, and it is bipartisan.
There is simply no evidence to support the idea that police are
outgunned. Criminals are not rolling around with IEDs and armored
vehicles. This is an opportunity, given the failure of us to do
anything about the relationship between police and communities--
anything at all in this Congress, in this historic moment--this
amendment is an opportunity to actually get something done. We have
bipartisan cosponsors. This will be a bipartisan vote. We have
organizations, frankly, on the far left and the far right supporting
this amendment. This is an opportunity for the Senate to actually get
something done. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I appreciate the words of the
distinguished Senator from Hawaii. Those of us who served in law
enforcement know the temptation to seek out this kind of military
hardware and the basic uselessness and cost of it when that is done.
I will just be very brief in mentioning that we had a small, very
safe, and very quiet community. The police chief was in my office when
I was State's attorney, and the chief law enforcement officer of the
county was all excited because he was going to get an armored personnel
carrier. I said: What are you going to do with it?
Well, just in case there is an uprising.
I said: An uprising is whether somebody is shouting too much on your
Fourth of July parades. I said: If you get that, I can assure you that
if it is used, I will have an inquiry into why it was used, and no
cases from your jurisdiction will be allowed in the court. He decided
he could find better uses of their other things.
I said: Besides, you are going to get laughed out of town if you get
it.
Coronavirus
I have spoken many times about the need for another COVID-19
supplemental. We see the frightening trajectory of this virus. The
terrible human suffering, loss, and economic devastation that is
causing families, businesses, and public services in every State and
municipality in this country have greatly accentuated the urgency of
that need.
As the coronavirus continues to outpace the White House's appallingly
belated, I would say, incompetent, inadequate, and incoherent efforts
to contain it, and while they keep trying to make a sound bite, the
number of Americans becoming sick and dying continues to rise.
They ought to be worried, first and foremost, about Americans and
Americans' health and Americans' safety far more than what might be a
political sound bite for this fall's election. I remind those who are
running this fall, if you want to make sound bites about this and not
do anything, as of yesterday, the virus has infected more than 3.8
million Americans. It has killed more than 143,000. Those are not
numbers. Those are people. There have been 30,000 more Americans who
have been killed by this virus in the past 5 months than died in
Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined.
What is the President's response? Well, the virus will soon just go
away. After dismissing the virus as nothing to worry about and
predicting that the U.S. economy would come roaring back in June, our
self-proclaimed wartime President has, for all intents and purposes,
left the battlefield.
Unfortunately, the people who are fighting COVID have not left the
battlefield. These are friends of mine. I have known people who have
died from this. We all do. Hopefully, we all know doctors and nurses
and others who work on the frontlines of this.
After months of the President belittling those who wear masks to
protect themselves and others, almost nothing he has said about this
pandemic has turned out to be accurate or, worse yet, helpful. At this
point, his priority appears to be keeping the Confederate flag flying
and honoring those who fought to defend slavery and destroy the Union.
This is appalling, even for this divisive President who wants to
protect the names of people who are traitors to the United States and
fought against the United States. Why not put names of people on those
forts and those military bases who actually defended the United States
and fought for us?
Back to COVID-19. We know the virus toll in this country is
staggering, and unlike many countries where governments quickly put in
place effective controls, and the virus has receded in those countries
that put the controls in and their economies have largely reopened,
here, it is getting worse.
We also need to be aware of what the virus is doing in other parts of
the world because that will determine how long it is going to take to
defeat this pandemic and how long before life returns to normal in our
own country. Any virus is only an airplane trip away from our shores,
but that has been ignored by the White House.
Last week, the World Health Organization, which the White House
blames for favoring China--at the same time, incidentally, President
Trump was praising Xi Jinping for China's response to the virus--
reported more than 14 million confirmed infections and more than
600,000 deaths worldwide. The virus has spread to 216 countries and
territories. It affected the entire world. Countries with the most
advanced healthcare systems in the world are struggling to cope with
the flood of sick people. As bad as that is, the situation is far worse
in developing countries, where billions of people have no access to
quality medical services, and,
[[Page S4318]]
for that matter, even safe water and sanitation.
Their governments have minimal ability to stop the spread of the
virus or to shore up their failing economies and to stop the virus from
going elsewhere. Without aid from the United States and other donors,
the virus spreads out of control. You know, we are not isolated from
the rest of the world. We have already seen this happening in our
hemisphere.
According to USAID; the World Food Programme; the Vaccine Alliance,
GAVI; the Global Fund; and other public health and humanitarian
organizations, COVID-related needs around the world are spiking in
every area. USAID said that whatever amount of resources the Congress
provides is not going to be enough.
They describe massive gaps in meeting what they foresee as a tidal
wave of need in the making, at the same time that they and others are
trying to stop the backsliding in other infectious disease programs,
which, because we are all on one globe, ultimately affect us.
If the current trend continues, 270 million people will be without
adequate food by the end of this year, an increase of 150 million due
to the pandemic alone. U.S. Food for Peace Program, known as P.L. 480
Title II, has been a lifesaver for over 60 years. More than 3 billion
people in 150 countries have received P.L. 480 food aid, and it has
been backed strongly by both Republicans and Democrats in this body. It
is absolutely vital to the COVID-19 response.
The World Food Programme is undertaking the biggest humanitarian
response in its history. Does that affect us in the United States? Of
course, it does because we are interrelated, and because if these
problems continue in other parts of the world, ultimately, they do
affect us very, very much.
In the United States, we see that our agriculture economy is
continuing to suffer. The Trump trade wars have hurt our farmers. The
pandemic has accelerated their decline. Actually, additional funding
for P.L. 480 will help address immediate global hunger needs, while it
would also support America's farm community suffering from the economic
crisis caused by COVID-19.
The U.N. believes the number of COVID-19 infections are massively
underreported and is running out of funds to support the hundreds of
passengers and cargo flights carrying international aid and workers'
food and medical supplies, and, of course, many of these humanitarian
workers are themselves becoming ill.
Both USAID and the U.N. have stated that you have to have U.S.
leadership to get other countries to help. It is a practice widely
understood, apparently everywhere except at the White House. The less
prepared we and other countries are for what lies ahead, the worse it
is going to be for them and for us.
You know, this is not just being good humanitarians on our part; we
have an interest in this, too--in the world being healthy. It is not a
problem that is going to be solved by an ``America First'' policy or by
building a wall and saying somebody else will pay for it or by blaming
others.
Americans can't safely resume normal international travel and
commerce without a successful global strategy to reduce the number and
rate of infections. As long as the virus is spreading in this
hemisphere and beyond, Americans will continue to become infected and
die, and the U.S. economy will suffer, no matter how many tweets and
sound bites come from the White House.
The amount appropriated for the international response to the virus
in previous COVID-19 supplementals totals $2.4 billion, including less
than $1 billion for food and other humanitarian aid. That is about one-
half of 1 percent of the sum total of those emergency supplementals.
I will put much of these numbers in the Record, but there are
billions needed for the cost of purchasing and distributing billions of
doses of a coronavirus vaccine, as soon as one is available. GAVI will
play an essential role in that, protecting the world and protecting us
because that distribution is going to be immensely difficult and
costly, and we have to be prepared as soon as the vaccine is proven to
be safe and effective.
The longer Congress delays, then the more costly--in lives and
dollars--an effective international response to COVID-19 becomes.
The President does not want to be the leader we need at this critical
time. So it is up to Congress--an independent branch of government--to
actually stand up and do our work.
On July 10, the House Appropriations Committee marked up its fiscal
year 2021 bill for the Department of State and Foreign Operations,
which includes $10 million in emergency funding to respond to COVID-19.
That is a good start, but we have a lot more to do. I hope the proposal
that will finally be unveiled by the majority leader will include funds
for an international response.
Senator Graham--a Republican--and I have worked together on this
Foreign Ops bill. We are in agreement that we need strong U.S.
leadership at this critical time. I am going to be making
recommendations to other members of the Appropriations Committee on
this.
I will close on an entirely different matter.
When I see a Navy veteran come and ask masked, unidentified soldiers,
police officers--nobody really said who they were--dispersing a crowd
in Portland, and he just stands there and says: Look, who are you? What
are you doing? He was not being in any way threatening. What is their
response to him? They start beating him and beating him and firing tear
gas at him. He simply asked: Who are you? Why are you in our town? What
are you doing? Will you please tell me who you are. They start beating
him, and they break his hand. This is a Navy veteran who has served our
country.
This is as out of control as anything else. And to hear smug comments
from members of the administration saying that we have to do this--no,
everybody knows they are doing that hoping that somehow it will help
the President's reelection.
I want to help the United States of America
I have spoken many times about the need for another COVID-19
supplemental. The frightening trajectory of this virus and the terrible
human suffering, loss, and economic devastation it is causing families,
businesses, and public services in every State and municipality in this
country, have greatly accentuated the urgency of that need.
As the coronavirus continues to outpace the White House's appallingly
belated, incompetent, inadequate, and incoherent efforts to contain it,
the number of Americans becoming sick and dying continues to rise.
As of yesterday, the virus has infected more than 3.8 million
Americans and has killed more than 143,000.
Those are not numbers. They are people. Thirty thousand more
Americans have been killed by this virus in the past 5 months than died
in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined.
The President's response? That the virus will ``soon just go away''.
After dismissing the virus as nothing to worry about and predicting
that the U.S. economy would come ``roaring back'' in June, our self-
proclaimed ``war time President'' has for all intents and purposes left
the battlefield.
After months of belittling those who wear masks to protect themselves
and others, almost nothing he has said about this pandemic has turned
out to be accurate or helpful.
At this point, his priority appears to be keeping the confederate
flag flying and honoring those who fought to defend slavery and destroy
the Union. That is appalling, even for this divisive President.
The virus's toll in this country is staggering, and unlike many
countries where governments quickly put in place effective controls and
the virus has receded and economies have largely reopened, here it is
getting worse.
But we also need to be aware of what the virus is doing in other
parts of the world because that will determine how long it will take to
defeat this pandemic and how long before life returns to normal in our
own country. This, too, has been all but ignored by the White House.
Last week, the World Health Organization--which the White House
blames for favoring China at the same time President Trump was praising
Xi Jinping for China's response to the virus--reported more than 14
million confirmed infections and more than 600,000 deaths worldwide.
The virus has
[[Page S4319]]
spread to 216 countries and territories--in effect, the entire world.
Countries with the most advanced health care systems in the world are
struggling to cope with the flood of sick people. As bad as that is,
the situation is far worse in developing countries, where billions of
people have no access to quality medical services or even safe water
and sanitation.
Their governments have minimal ability to stop the spread of the
virus or to shore up their failing economies. Without aid from the
United States and other donors, the virus will spread out of control.
In fact, that is already happening in this hemisphere.
According to USAID, the World Food Programme, WFP; The Vaccine
Alliance, GAVI; the Global Fund; and other public health and
humanitarian organizations, COVID-related needs around the world are
spiking ``in every area'' and USAID says that whatever amount of
resources the Congress provides ``will not be enough.''
They describe ``massive gaps'' in meeting what they fore see as a
``tidal wave of need'' in the making, at the same time that they and
others are trying to stop the backsliding in other infectious disease
programs.
According to WFP, if current trends continue, 270 million people will
be without adequate food by the end of this year, an increase of 150
million due to the pandemic alone.
The U.S. Food for Peace Program, known as P.L. 480--Title II, has
been a life-saver for over 60 years. More than three billion people in
150 countries have received P.L. 480 food aid.
This program is absolutely vital to the COVID-19 response. As
countries restrict international travel to slow the spread of the
virus, it is disrupting the transport and movement of food.
WFP is undertaking the biggest humanitarian response in its history.
According to David Beasley, ``[t]his unprecedented crisis requires an
unprecedented response. If we do not respond rapidly and effectively to
this viral threat, the outcome will be measured in an unconscionable
loss of life, and efforts to roll back the tide of hunger will be
undone.''
In the United States, the agriculture economy is continuing to
suffer. Not only have the Trump trade wars hurt our farmers, the
pandemic has accelerated their decline. Additional funding for P.L. 480
would help address immediate global hunger needs, while also supporting
America's farm community suffering from the economic crisis caused by
COVID-19.
The United Nations believes the number of COVID-19 infections is
``massively under-reported,'' and is running out of funds to support
the hundreds of passenger and cargo flights carrying international aid
workers, food, and medical supplies. Their efforts are also threatened
by the fact that many health and humanitarian workers are getting sick.
All of this requires large infusions of money, and USAID and the U.N.
both say that U.S. leadership is crucial to obtaining contributions
from other donors. It is widely understood--at least everywhere except
inside the White House--that the less prepared we and other countries
are for what lies ahead the worse it will be for them and for us.
This is not a problem that will be solved by an ``America First''
policy or by building a wall or by blaming others.
Americans cannot safely resume normal international travel and
commerce without a successful global strategy to sustainably reduce the
number and rate of infections. As long as the virus is spreading in
this hemisphere and beyond, Americans will continue to become infected
and die and the U.S. economy will suffer.
The amount appropriated for the international response to the virus
in previous COVID-19 supplementals totals $2.4 billion, including less
than $1 billion for food and other humanitarian aid. That is less than
one-half of 1 percent of the sum total of those emergency
supplementals.
Today's appeals from just the Global Fund, WFP, and GAVI total $10
billion, and that doesn't include the needs of agencies like the UN
High Commissioner for Refugees, UNICEF, or our own programs
administered by USAID and the State Department.
Several billion dollars are needed just for the cost of purchasing
and distributing billions of doses of a coronavirus vaccine as soon as
one is available, in which GAVI will play a central role. The
distribution will be immensely difficult and costly, and we have to be
prepared as soon as a vaccine is proven to be safe and effective.
The longer Congress delays, the more costly--in lives and dollars--an
effective international response to COVID-19 becomes. Controlling the
outbreak here at home is ultimately a lost cause if we do not act
aggressively to assist other countries in the global fight against this
pandemic.
President Trump has shown that he cannot and will not be the leader
we need at this critical time. It is up to Congress. The longer we
delay, the more difficult and costly it will be to defeat this virus.
On July 10, the House Appropriations Committee marked up its fiscal
year 2021 bill for the Department of State and Foreign Operations,
which includes $10 billion in emergency funding for the international
response to COVID-19. That is a good start, but it is too little. The
virus is racing around the world and the costs of stopping it are
increasing every day.
I hope the proposal about to be unveiled by the majority leader
includes the necessary funds for the international response because, to
repeat, controlling the outbreak here at home is ultimately a lost
cause if we do not act aggressively to assist other countries against
this pandemic.
I believe Senator Graham and I are in agreement about the need for
strong U.S. leadership at this critical time. I will be making my own
recommendation to the other members of the Appropriations Committee for
the necessary funding to combat the virus overseas, and I urge other
Senators to support it.
S. 4049
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, there is a Cold War-era quote, attributed to
Winston Churchill, that ``in a democracy, a knock on the door in the
early morning is the milkman.''
In the United States, we are not supposed to fear a knock on our
front door. If the police do knock on our door, we expect them to come
at a reasonable hour and to respond to criminal activity with the
professionalism befitting the peace officers they are.
Those are the expectations of a free people, proud of its history and
tradition of separating the roles between civilian law enforcement
agencies and the Armed Forces--one is to keep the peace within its
community, the other is to destroy foreign adversaries.
By keeping those roles separate, Americans have historically built
and sustained a strong bond of trust with their police officers. But,
for years, the war on crime and the misguided war on drugs has looked a
lot like the war on terror.
Throughout our country, due to the Department of Defense's 1033
Program, law enforcement is equipped with the tools of the U.S.
military, which has predictably resulted in the continued decline of
the relationship between the police and those they serve.
Perhaps we should discuss the kinds of machinery provided to local
police departments.
The 1033 Program provided to the sleepy New England town of Keene,
NH, a Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Counter Attack Truck,
otherwise known as a Bearcat.
That might sound menacing, but it is nothing compared to what the
Department of Defense provided to Columbia, SC: a mine-resistant war
truck, equipped with a machine gun.
These examples are by no means unique. Between 2006 and 2014, the
Department of Defense transferred over $1.5 billion worth of equipment,
including over 600 mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles, 79,288
assault rifles, 205 grenade launchers, and 11,959 bayonets to civilian
police departments. These are not the tools of peace officers. These
are weapons uniquely designed to crush an enemy army.
Mr. President, there has emerged a consensus that we have turned our
back on our own principles and blurred the lines between civilian law
enforcement and soldiers of war.
And we know that because the Inhofe amendment concedes as much. By
limiting the types of weapons that can be transferred, such as bayonets
and grenades, the Inhofe amendment acknowledges that there are at least
some military-grade weapons that should not be turned on the streets of
America's communities.
[[Page S4320]]
But, despite that major and very welcome concession, the Inhofe
amendment contains a very telling blind spot. It focuses almost
exclusively on weaponry and not the true issue here, the importance of
trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
The Inhofe amendment takes as a given that the transfers of military
surplus equipment are between the law enforcement agencies, the DOD,
and no one else.
The Schatz-Paul amendment takes a different approach by ensuring that
communities are notified of requests and transfers, by posting notices
throughout the community and on a public website, as well as community
participation by ensuring that a jurisdiction's governing body approves
of the transfers. And the Schatz-Paul amendment provides enforcement
mechanisms to combat police militarization.
Mr. President, the police have a very difficult job and serve a
critical function. Without the rule of law, a civilized society cannot
exist. We cannot take the police for granted. They are brave citizens,
and they deserve our gratitude.
That is the core of the Schatz-Paul amendment. Our amendment takes
seriously the idea that the cops on the beat can only do their job well
when they are well known to their neighbors and trusted by their
communities.
By providing the Federal Government and local citizens a role in
evaluating what tools should be available to civilian police forces,
the Schatz-Paul amendment will help build the relationship between law
enforcement, their communities, and, in turn, make our citizens, our
police, and our neighborhoods safer.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Schatz-Paul amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Schatz
amendment. The Schatz amendment would make changes to one of the
Defense Department's surplus property programs, known as the 1033
Program, which allows the Defense Department to disperse excess
military equipment to Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies.
The 1033 Program has provided the Defense Department a way to reuse
taxpayer-funded equipment it no longer needs by providing it to law
enforcement agencies. This, in turn, saves State and local governments
from having to buy new equipment. This program is almost 25 years old,
and it has been the subject of continued scrutiny and modifications.
I would first like to review what is in place. DOD requires that all
requests for equipment from law enforcement agencies include a
justification of how the property will be used. This justification is a
key factor in determining if a requisition is to be approved.
Next, according to the Defense Department, 92 percent of the
equipment transferred during fiscal year 2019 was in the category of
uncontrolled property--things like office equipment, first aid kits,
hand tools, computers, and digital cameras. After 1 year from transfer,
items in this category become the property of the law enforcement
agency and are no longer subject to annual inventory requirements. The
rest of the property transferred under the 1033 Program is considered
controlled property and is given to law enforcement agencies on a
conditional or ``loan'' basis. This includes things like small arms,
demilitarized vehicles, and night vision equipment.
Typically, small arms weapons only make up about 5 percent of the
property transferred in the 1033 Program. When a law enforcement agency
no longer wants or needs this controlled property, it must be returned
to the Department of Defense.
To ensure that this program is run responsibly and effectively, the
Government Accountability Office has provided several reviews of this
program that have been helpful in past years to tighten the
requirements on participants in the 1033 Program. The committee report
accompanying the bill before us requires another GAO review of DOD's
disposal of military vehicles, which could inform additional reforms
when we receive the results of the review.
I also know that the Defense Logistics Agency requires annual audits
of participating agencies to ensure they are accountable for the
equipment they have received. If an agency is delinquent or doesn't
meet the requirements, then they can be suspended or terminated from
the 1033 Program.
While this Program is an effective way of reusing equipment that
taxpayers have already paid for, we continually need to ensure that our
civilian law enforcement agencies do not end up looking like or acting
like our military when they patrol the streets. Given some of the
incidents that have occurred in recent months, I believe that
additional modifications are necessary.
The Schatz amendment adds some reasonable requirements and
limitations to the 1033 Program. For one thing, it would codify the
prohibition of certain items from being transferred under the 1033
Program, things like certain kinds of ammunition, grenades, and drones.
This amendment would also prohibit the use of transferred equipment
against First Amendment-protected activities, such as the right to
peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of
grievances.
I know that the Defense Department has some concerns about how this
amendment would be implemented, but I believe these concerns can be
addressed during conference with the House. I believe it is important
and timely to make such changes to the 1033 Program today.
I support the Schatz amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of it.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I come to the floor today to urge my
colleagues to support amendment No. 2411, offered by the Senator from
Oklahoma, and oppose amendment No. 2252, offered by the Senator from
Hawaii.
I have heard from law enforcement in my State. They use this program
to get critical search-and-rescue equipment that saves lives. In
Sweetwater County, the sheriff used equipment from the 1033 Program to
rescue 22 people in just 5 months. In Big Horn County, equipment from
the program rescued a family who was kayaking when 6-feet waves arose.
A boat from this program was the only equipment that could break
through the waves to rescue the family. Without the 1033 Program, they
would not be able to afford this lifesaving equipment.
Sometimes the equipment is not used, in which case we are pleased
that there is no need for a search and rescue that year, or some of it
is converted to fire protection equipment.
The burdensome paperwork required by the amendment offered by the
Senator from Hawaii would effectively end access to the program for the
local law enforcement in my State whose departments are small. Our
towns are small. The activities have to be combined between fire and
police protection.
Senator Inhofe has attempted to find the middle ground. His amendment
requires reforms and training without an egregious paperwork burden
that could end this important program.
Again, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of amendment 2411
offered by Senator Inhofe.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, just by way of rebuttal to the Senator
from Wyoming, to make clear what the Schatz-Murkowski-Harris-Paul
amendment does, we were very thoughtful and deliberative and
collaborative with Members of the Senate to ensure that the problem he
is describing would not occur under this new statute. So let me just be
specific. Search-and-rescue equipment, boats, things like that which
clearly have a virtuous civilian use are not prohibited transfers under
my amendment.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Vote on Amendment No. 2252
Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
[[Page S4321]]
Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we start
the vote now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the question occurs on agreeing to the
Schatz amendment No. 2252.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 132 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gardner
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--49
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Loeffler
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Youn
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). On this vote, the yeas are 51, the
nays are 49.
Under the previous order, the 60-vote threshold having not been
achieved, the amendment is not agreed to.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 2411
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2411 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an
amendment numbered 2411 to amendment No. 2301.
The amendment is as follows
(Purpose: To impose additional conditions and limitations on the
transfer of Department of Defense property for law enforcement
activities)
At the end of subtitle E of title X, insert the following:
SEC. 1052. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS ON THE
TRANSFER OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROPERTY FOR
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.
(a) Additional Training of Recipient Agency Personnel
Required.--Subsection (b)(6) of section 2576a of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``, including respect for the
rights of citizens under the Constitution of the United
States and de-escalation of force''.
(b) Certain Property Not Transferrable.--Such section is
further amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(f) and (g), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsection (e):
``(d) Property Not Transferrable.--The Secretary may not
transfer to a Tribal, State, or local law enforcement agency
under this section the following:
``(1) Bayonets.
``(2) Grenades (other than stun and flash-bang grenades).
``(3) Weaponized tracked combat vehicles.
``(4) Weaponized drones.''.
Vote on Amendment No. 2411
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs
on Inhofe amendment No. 2411.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 10, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 133 Leg.]
YEAS--90
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
McConnell
McSally
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--10
Blackburn
Booker
Cotton
Harris
Hawley
Kennedy
Loeffler
Markey
Sanders
Warre
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 90, the nays are
10.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
____________________