[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.

                          ____________________