[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 21, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4321-S4339]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                                 Budget

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise today to discuss our Federal 
finances and the need to address our unsustainable fiscal debt and 
deficit.
  The Federal budget has already been on an unsustainable path before 
COVID-19 reached our shores and before the pandemic and our 
government's response to it, which has accelerated what I believe is a 
coming day of reckoning.
  I recognize the unprecedented crisis presented by COVID-19. I support 
the necessary response. Together, Congress has passed and the President 
has signed five separate pieces of legislation responding to the 
pandemic and its economic fallout that together will cost more than $2 
trillion.
  I never would have supported trillions in new spending unless I truly 
believed that it was necessary to combat the virus and prevent economic 
catastrophe resulting from the government shuttering the economy. I 
know many of my colleagues feel that same way.
  When this crisis abates--and it will--the Federal Government cannot 
afford to return to the status quo of unsustainable budgets and surging 
debt that jeopardizes the prosperity of future generations. We have to 
start serious conversation about how we are going to pay our bills and 
put our finances on a more sustainable path. We can justify aggressive 
borrowing and spending as necessary during times of crisis, but that 
can't be the default.
  So far this fiscal year, we have already run up a deficit of $2.7 
trillion in 1 year, more than triple the size of the deficit we ran at 
the same time last year. The Congressional Budget Office says that we 
are on track to spend $3.7 trillion more than we take in this year, and 
that is assuming we don't pass new COVID legislation. By the end of the 
fiscal year, our publicly held debt will exceed the size of our economy 
and, by the end of next year, debt as a percentage of the economy will 
be higher than it has ever been in our history. I have a little chart 
here that demonstrates that.
  We have been fortunate the interest rates on our debt are currently 
low, and the government has been able to borrow the funds necessary to 
address the crisis caused by the pandemic. The dollar has remained 
relatively strong, helping to keep inflation low. The U.S. dollar 
remains the world's reserve currency and the safe haven for investments 
in the current time of crisis.
  But how long will that be the case if we continue to run trillion-
dollar deficits each year? Future Congresses will not have the same 
flexibility to deal

[[Page S4322]]

with their own crises if we leave them saddled with an enormous 
national debt. They will not be able to fund new emergency programs 
without cutting other spending or raising revenues.
  That is why it is so critical that we get a hold of our debt and 
deficits once we emerge from this pandemic. Regardless of what some 
people far outside of the economic mainstream are saying, there are 
constraints on how much government can borrow and spend without 
triggering higher interest rates or inflation. If we just start 
printing money to pay for overspending, our country could face the 
curse of stagflation, a combination of high inflation and low to no 
economic growth. We haven't had to think about this type of devastating 
combination since the late seventies, and that is economic history we 
should not repeat.
  Even if we have the capacity for significant, one-time emergency 
spending, we should bear in mind the fact that the Federal Government 
doesn't have a good track record of reducing spending after it has 
ratcheted it up during a crisis.
  I would remind my colleagues of the old adage: There is nothing so 
permanent as a temporary government program. We are already hearing 
calls to extend or make permanent many of the temporary entitlement 
expansions enacted in previous bills.
  More legislation may be needed to combat the virus and help the 
economy, but we cannot use the crisis to justify opening the spending 
floodgates and borrowing from future generations to fund nonemergency 
priorities. Low interest rates do not mean that government spending is 
free or that we don't need to spend it wisely.
  The House of Representatives has passed a bill that the Congressional 
Budget Office says will cost nearly $3.5 trillion. That is more than 
the cost of all the COVID-19 legislation we have already enacted 
combined. Are we to believe every penny of that is absolutely 
necessary?
  A $60 billion bailout for union pensions? A massive giveaway for 
wealthy individuals living in high-tax States? Billions in student loan 
forgiveness for all borrowers, regardless of income and ability to pay?
  We should not view this crisis--a crisis that claimed over 130,000 
American lives and left millions out of work--as an opportunity to 
enact things that have nothing to do with the pandemic.
  And it is not just the lower Chamber. The Senate recently approved 
$17 billion in new mandatory spending for the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund and park and public lands maintenance. We 
refused to consider an amendment to even try to pay for that bill, an 
attempt that would have mostly charged foreigners visiting our parks. 
As I said, if we don't try to pay for that bill, what will we pay for?

  We are just adding to an already long list of unfunded mandatory 
spending programs that we allow to operate on autopilot without ever 
being voted on or ever being evaluated again. Nobody runs a business 
like that. Even though these programs are allowed to bypass the annual 
appropriations process, most of them don't have any dedicated revenue 
to pay for the spending. And those that do collect their own revenue 
often spend more than they take in--with no vote. It just happens. Even 
before the pandemic, the Congressional Budget Office projected that 
Social Security spending over the next 10 years would total $15.2 
trillion. But listen to this: The program's dedicated tax revenues 
would only cover $12.5 trillion of that--$15.2 trillion cost; $12.5 
trillion revenue. Medicare's taxes and premiums were projected to cover 
only half of the program's $12.6 trillion spending over the next 10 
years. We put the rest of it on the Nation's credit card left to be 
paid for by future generations. What kind of a crisis are they going to 
have?
  This chart shows again that this is the revenue coming in for Social 
Security, and this is the additional we have to borrow. This is the 
money coming in from Medicare, and this is the additional we have to 
borrow. Medicaid, we borrow every bit of it. The total revenue that we 
receive will not cover these deficits, so everything else that we do we 
will have to borrow for it.
  If the interest rate were to go up to its norm of 5 percent, we 
wouldn't be able to do defense; we wouldn't be able to do education; we 
wouldn't be able to do anything else, infrastructure or otherwise, that 
we expect the Federal Government to do for us. We have to start getting 
control of it. It isn't an unlimited source of money. We are putting it 
on the Nation's credit card, and the future generations will have to 
pay for it.
  There are a couple of ways you can pay for it. One is to eliminate 
the services. The other one is to increase revenues. Another one, of 
course, is to eliminate a lot of duplication that we have, but we don't 
even have an appetite for that.
  We have over 100 housing programs. Tell me there is no duplication in 
100 housing programs, but we don't look at them. Most of them are 
mandatory. So we can just ignore the impacts of them and the fact that 
we have multiple administrators doing the same job, and we don't even 
know if it is effective.
  I have been trying for a long time through the Budget Committee to 
get a list of the programs we fund. Now, you would think, if we are 
writing checks, that we would have a list of programs, wouldn't you? We 
don't have a list of programs. We don't know what we own. We don't know 
when it is going to wear out. We don't know what the cost of 
replacement would be. All are very basic business decisions, but we 
just keep sliding everything over to mandatory so it has to be paid for 
regardless of whether we have any money or not, and we don't even look 
at them. That has to change, and it has to change rapidly or our kids 
and our grandkids will find that all of their money has been spent, and 
all they can do is pay more taxes.
  I am frustrated that we are spending billions without so much as a 
discussion about how to pay for things. Yes, we needed a strong 
response to the COVID virus, but I am disappointed that we can't work 
together on responsible solutions, even modest efforts like a paid-for 
fix for our parks and public lands maintenance that I mentioned would 
already be paid for by foreign visitors. I am dismayed that we keep 
digging the hole deeper for future generations. We all owe it to them 
to do better, and I hope we start to do it soon.
  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.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                S. 4049

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak in 
support of Senate amendment No. 1729, which I hope will be added today 
to the National Defense Authorization Act. The goal of this amendment 
is to finish--what I hope is to finish a public health study that we 
began with legislation in 2017 to address the contaminant known as 
PFAS. I know the Presiding Officer knows about this because she has 
that chemical in her State as well.
  I want to begin by commending the work of the Armed Services 
Committee--both Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed for working 
with me to establish the first ever human health study of PFAS and to 
institute policies that will phase out the Defense Department's use of 
these chemicals over the next several years.
  We began this journey in 2017 when we put $10 million into a health 
study--the first of its kind in the country--to look at the impacts of 
PFAS on humans. At that time, we authorized $10 million for 3 years. 
Unfortunately, because of the coronavirus pandemic, it is taking longer 
to complete the study than we had hoped, so we are going to need some 
additional funding.
  There is real urgency in addressing PFAS. As many of us know, PFAS 
chemicals have emerged as widespread pollutants in the drinking water 
sources of military bases across this country. The main reason is 
because PFAS chemicals were used in firefighting foam that was used by 
the armed services.
  The number of military installations with known or suspected 
contamination from PFAS continues to rise. In March, DOD updated its 
count of military installations impacted by these materials from 401 
across the country to 651--651 military installations--

[[Page S4323]]

which means that they are in almost every State in the United States, 
and other studies have reported that this is actually a conservative 
estimate.
  We don't yet know what the long-term risks of exposure to PFAS are 
because we are still trying to get research into that, but studies have 
already linked these chemicals--and there are hundreds of chemicals in 
the PFAS category--to a number of adverse health effects.
  The potential ties between PFAS and various forms of cancer are of 
particular concern to firefighters who may have experienced exposure 
during firefighting and fire-training exercises.
  On June 11, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 
ATSDR--works as part of the Centers for Disease Control--issued a 
statement expressing concern about how PFAS exposure can impact the 
risk of COVID-19 infections. Now, for all of us who have constituents 
who have been exposed to PFAS, we know this has caused a lot of 
sleepless nights for countless American families both in New Hampshire 
and across the country who have been living and working near sites 
contaminated by these materials.
  In my State of New Hampshire, the city of Portsmouth, which was the 
home of the former Pease Air Force Base, closed a major water supply 
well located at that airbase after the Air Force found PFAS in the 
drinking water at levels 12\1/2\ times higher than the provisional 
health advisory from the Environmental Protection Agency at that time. 
That number has changed since then.
  Moreover, State health officials determined that more than 1,500 
people, including children who attended daycare centers near the site, 
have elevated levels of PFAS in their blood from drinking contaminated 
groundwater at Pease. I have heard from so many parents who are 
terrified of what this contamination means for the health of their 
children.
  One woman, who has been a real leader in responding to the PFAS 
emergency, Andrea Amico of Portsmouth, remembers feeling like her world 
was crashing down when tests showed that her two children, exposed to 
PFAS in drinking water at Pease, had elevated levels of these materials 
in their blood. She said: ``[T]o actually see it on paper, to know it 
was true, was very devastating for me, and the wide range of emotions I 
experienced with those results ranged from anger to fear, frustration 
and guilt.'' Andrea's children attended the childcare center--one of 
the two childcare centers at Pease.
  I also heard from Alayna Davis of Dover and Michelle Dalton of 
Durham, both of whom are mothers with children at a daycare center near 
the former base at Portsmouth. Alayna said that she was exposed to PFAS 
at Pease when she was pregnant with her son. She and her husband were 
devastated when they learned that their son had high levels of PFAS in 
his blood. Michelle was exposed to the contaminated water in January of 
2011 when she started working on the base. Her youngest child has 
attended daycare at Pease since he was 12 weeks old, but, of course, he 
was exposed to contamination since conception.
  Stories like Andrea's, Alayna's, and Michelle's are not limited to 
Portsmouth, sadly. Contamination from PFAS is not limited to military 
bases and airports. That is why this long-term health study is so 
important, and it is so critical that we complete it. We need to know 
what the research says are the dangers of PFAS.
  Since Congress authorized the study in 2017, the ATSDR and Centers 
for Disease Control have been working to identify the health effects of 
PFAS exposure, starting with the former Pease airbase in Portsmouth. 
There are other--I believe there are seven other sites around the 
country that have been designated as part of this study. Unfortunately, 
due to COVID-19, as I said earlier, the agencies expect additional 
costs associated with continuing the study, as well as a 1-year delay 
in finalizing the results.
  I think we could all agree that families who have been exposed to 
these chemicals deserve answers. What my amendment would do is provide 
additional funding for the PFAS health study to ensure that ATSDR and 
CDC can complete their work and do it without delay.
  The safety of our drinking water is essential, and it is 
nonnegotiable. The potential serious health effects associated with 
exposure to PFAS chemicals demand moving forward with policies that 
will protect our communities, especially our men and women in uniform. 
Senate amendment 1729 would help to do just that.
  Of course, this is just the beginning. This gives us a baseline study 
to tell us what the health effects are. Once we get that study and as 
we continue to move forward, we have a lot of work to do to ensure that 
PFAS--not just on military bases but in communities across this 
country, which appear in so many different products--that we can 
address that in a way that provides some sort of insurance and 
protection to families across this country so they know what they are 
dealing with and so they know they can get help. I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. The cars we drive, the planes we fly, and the smartphones 
we have in our pockets are all powered by computer chips--or 
semiconductors--a technology that is key to modern society and that may 
determine whether America or China leads the world in the decades to 
come.
  Computer chips were, of course, pioneered in America. Cold War-era 
initiatives like the Apollo Program, DARPA, and SEMATECH created the 
breakthroughs and steady demand for this high-tech industry. Storied 
American companies like Intel, IBM, Texas Instruments, Micron, and 
others commercialized and then perfected this technology. Brilliant 
American entrepreneurs and engineers kick-started the digital 
revolution that shaped the modern world. That was then. Today, sadly, 
most semiconductors are not made in the U.S.A.
  We have learned during this pandemic how dangerous it is to rely on 
distant factories and overstretched supply chains that can be 
compromised by emergencies or enemies. Well, almost three-quarters of 
the world's capacity to make computer chips is located in just a 
handful of countries in East Asia--closer to Communist China than our 
shores and all within range of the missiles of the People's Liberation 
Army.
  China is investing huge sums--possibly $150 billion--in its 
semiconductor industry. This investment is paying off. For the first 
time ever, last year China surpassed the United States in its capacity 
for manufacturing advanced chips. China is projected to surpass Japan 
and South Korea in the next 2 years, which would put it behind only 
Taiwan, an island just 80 miles off its shore, which, I must remind 
you, the PLA regularly trains to invade.
  We cannot allow China to dominate production of computer chips. Doing 
so would be a grave threat that could allow a corrupt clique of 
Communists to impose a high-tech tyranny on the rest of the world. That 
is why I am offering a bipartisan amendment, along with Senators 
Cornyn, Schumer, Warner, and others, to ensure American leadership in 
computer chips in the face of this Chinese threat. Our proposal calls 
for key investments in advanced factories and research and development 
so that America discovers and then produces the next generation of 
semiconductor technology. It also requires the Department of Defense 
and the intelligence community to work with trusted industry partners 
to secure the supply chain for computers chips for our military and 
other national security needs.
  This bill is a moonshot investment, and such investments don't come 
cheap. So I regret that the question of funding this bill has been 
postponed to another time, but I look forward to having and winning 
that debate because, make no mistake, robust support is needed to 
ensure the future of the American semiconductor industry. At the very 
least, it is necessary to level the playing field so that American 
companies can compete against the coercive, anti-competitive, and 
mercantilist policies of Communist China and others. It will provide a 
surge of support and demand for advanced technology, just as the 
Federal Government has always provided.
  We offer this amendment so that the next digital revolution is also 
made in the U.S.A., not in Communist China. I

[[Page S4324]]

urge my colleagues to support it and to support America's continued 
technological primacy in the world.
  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. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to express my support for the 
Cornyn amendment, which would, among other things, authorize a Federal 
grant program to enable the leading global chip companies to 
manufacture in the United States.
  I want to commend a bipartisan group of Senators who have worked so 
hard on this issue: Senators Cotton, Cornyn, Schumer, and Warner. The 
semiconductor manufacturing story is similar to many other industries 
in America. The United States invented the technology and still leads 
in research and development, but the manufacture of the product itself 
has steadily migrated to Asia.
  Over time, not just the manufacturing expertise and capacity are lost 
but also the science and engineering necessary to invent the next 
generation of products. While this has happened to too many industries, 
the impact is particularly acute in electronics because electronics 
power the modern economy, fueling all the critical technologies on 
which our future prosperity depend.
  Asian nations--and, in particular, China, Taiwan, and South Korea--
have for decades pursued aggressive industrial policies to gain control 
of the electronics industry. These policies directed large subsidies 
and protections for fledgling companies that have now become global 
giants.
  While South Korea is an ally, and Taiwan is a partner, the plants in 
those countries that make the world's most advanced logic and memory 
semiconductors are highly vulnerable to disruption or destruction by 
China and/or North Korea. In a confrontation in this region, China 
could threaten to bring the western economy to its knees by halting the 
flow of semiconductors.
  China itself is investing hundreds of billions of dollars in new 
semiconductor fabrication plants in a relentless bid to dominate this 
industry. In 10 years, Chinese companies may dominate the production of 
the chips that power 5G wireless networks, artificial intelligence, 
cloud computing, the Internet of Things, and autonomous vehicles.
  In America, there is one remaining company that is globally 
competitive in logic chips--Intel Corporation--but Intel is at least a 
generation behind its main competitors and historically has designed 
and produced chips only for its own product line. Its major global 
competitors--the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation, or 
TSMC, and Samsung--provide manufacturing services for chips designed by 
other companies. These are typically so-called fabless chips companies, 
and they include the names of some of our most famous tech companies: 
Qualcomm, Xilinx, Nvidia, and Microsoft. TSMC and Samsung, together, 
have close to a monopoly on the manufacturing of leading-edge 
semiconductors for fabless chip companies.
  Recently, there was the good news that Intel announced in a letter to 
the Defense Department its intent to compete with its Asian rivals in 
manufacturing chips designed by fabless companies. Again, these are 
companies that would design the chips and the electronic processor but 
would not produce the chips. That would be left to these other major 
companies.
  In addition, TSMC and the administration announced an agreement to 
bring TSMC to America to produce leading edge chips. It is suspected 
that Samsung can be persuaded to set up a major manufacturing facility 
in the United States, as well.
  The Defense Department has two major studies nearing completion, one 
by the Defense Science Board and one conducted in partnership with 
industry by the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Ellen Lord. They are 
both expected to plead for urgent and large-scale action to revive U.S. 
semiconductor manufacturing, but none of this is going to happen 
without funding and without a plan.
  We did not lose chip manufacturing to Asia simply due to cheap labor, 
especially in the chip industry, which is not manpower intensive. We 
lost this market sector because the investments required are massive 
and constant and because foreign governments heavily subsidize them.
  We all prefer to let markets govern where competition is fair and 
mutually beneficial, but relentless actions by foreign governments to 
dominate specific industries regardless of economics and where they 
succeed, like in the semiconductor industry, must be countered by U.S. 
government action because of the threat to our national security and 
prosperity.
  While this amendment does not include funding authorizations, it is 
an important first step. This amendment will serve notice that the U.S. 
Senate recognizes this very serious issue and intends to take 
corrective action.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to commit to 
finding funding solutions. Our economic well-being and our national 
security depend upon it.
  Madam President, I would now also like to speak about Senator 
Shaheen's amendment, which will be considered this afternoon, with your 
permission.
  I rise in support of Senator Shaheen's amendment to increase fiscal 
year 2021 funding by $5 million for the ongoing CDC human health study 
on the effects of PFAS substances in drinking water sources.
  As most of you are aware, PFOS and PFOA are chemicals that are very 
effective for extinguishing fires and have been used in firefighting 
foam in the Defense Department since the 1970s. Unfortunately, the 
fluorine bonds never break, and environmental problems are presented, 
which are very dangerous to people.
  The lifetime health advisory for PFAS is the equivalent of one grain 
of sand in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. The WHO found that these 
chemicals are likely carcinogenic, especially in children and pregnant 
women, and that they can decrease the effectiveness of vaccines, and 
they are known to cause cancer in animals.
  PFAS has been found in the drinking water at over 650 military 
installations in almost every State in the United States and overseas. 
Thousands of Americans in many States across the United States have 
already found elevated levels of PFAS in their blood.
  Beginning with the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization 
Act, the Department of Defense has been authorized to transfer funds to 
the CDC for a human health study on the effects of all PFAS substances 
in drinking water sources for people. Specifically, it seeks to 
determine the exact types of cancers and other toxic effects drinking 
water with PFAS has on human beings.
  For example, years ago, the CDC determined precisely how much lead 
can be ingested before cognitive impacts can occur in children. They 
can and should do the same thing with respect to PFAS.
  The study should take 7 years to complete. So this fiscal year 2021 
NDAA will fund year 4.
  The CDC study received $7 million in fiscal year 2018, $10 million in 
fiscal year 2019, $10 million in fiscal year 2020, and there is $10 
million currently in the fiscal year 2021 NDAA amendment. Senator 
Shaheen's amendment would increase it to $15 million. It would 
accelerate our ability to find these critical answers that affect the 
health and safety of the American people and are particularly 
associated with military bases all across the country, which means in 
every one of our States.
  We all recognize the urgent need for the CDC to better understand the 
toxic effects of PFAS chemicals on the human body, and supporting this 
amendment will accomplish just that.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Once again, I commend Senator Shaheen for her work in developing this 
amendment with respect to PFAS, and I commend Senator Cornyn and his 
colleagues for working very, very diligently and perceptively about 
building up our industrial base in order to produce microchips so we 
will be the leader in the world and not the follower.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S4325]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as the Senate knows, this week we will 
complete our work on the 60th National Defense Authorization Act--
actually, 60 years in a row. For decades, this legislation has provided 
the opportunity for us to take stock of the evolving threat landscape 
and ensure that our national defense is prepared to meet the challenges 
on the horizon.
  As technological advancements have changed battlefield tactics, each 
year's NDAA has allowed us to invest in a modernized force and advanced 
weapons. As risks in cyber space emerged as a new vector for warfare, 
this legislation has allowed us to invest in resilient networks and a 
talented workforce.
  As the global order has shifted, this annual bill has given us the 
opportunity to identify the greatest threats to our country and to take 
strategic action. This year's national defense authorization bill is no 
exception. It continues to invest in a modernized national defense that 
is critical to maintaining peace through strength.
  That is something we need to remember, which Ronald Reagan taught all 
of us. Weakness is provocative. Bullies look for opportunities to take 
advantage of weakness. It is strength in our leadership, particularly 
with our military, that helps us maintain the peace.
  This bill also devotes resources to regain our competitive advantage 
over our greatest opponents to freedom and democracy today, including 
China and the Communist Party. In my lifetime, China has gone from a 
poor and isolated country to now accounting for nearly 20 percent of 
the global gross domestic product. But China's economic muscle isn't 
the reason it tops America's watch list. The Chinese Communist Party's 
ruling strategy can best be described as ``win at all costs,'' and, 
sadly, the victims of that strategy are often the Chinese people 
themselves.
  On the Senate floor yesterday, I spoke about some of the latest human 
rights violations by the Communist Party in China--their recent move to 
erode the freedoms and autonomy of Hong Kong, their efforts to silence 
and punish protesters who dare to speak out against the Chinese 
Communist Party, their ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign targeted at 
the Uighur people.
  China continues to demonstrate a complete lack of respect for basic 
human rights and dignities, and I remain concerned by the growing 
threat they pose to the world order, including the United States of 
America.
  Attorney General Bill Barr recently gave a speech about the 
challenges posed by an increasingly powerful, wealthy, and relentless 
China. It is a great speech, which I commend to you. It provides an 
impressive overview of how the Communist Party manipulates American 
businesses and industries, steals intellectual property, surveils and 
censors its own people, and seeks to exert its power and influence in 
the United States.
  For those who are unfamiliar with the modern relationship between the 
United States and China and the risks and vulnerability this creates, I 
highly recommend reading the speech of the Attorney General. In that 
speech, he discusses the threats posed by the Communist Party's Made in 
China 2025 initiative, which seeks to achieve Chinese dominance in 
high-tech manufacturing. For everything from electric cars to advanced 
robotics, to artificial intelligence, China wants to lead global 
production.
  While this is framed as a way to reduce the dependence on foreign 
technology and strengthen domestic manufacturing, these ambitions paint 
an alarming picture for the United States and our allies.
  As the Attorney General noted, it is clear that the People's Republic 
of China seeks not merely to join the ranks of other advanced 
industrial economies but to replace them altogether.
  Before any piece of technology becomes usable for its audience, it 
includes parts, pieces, and materials that come from, literally, all 
over the world. Regardless of where that final product is assembled and 
packaged, each of those individual pieces are the key to protecting the 
supply chain that creates our most valuable assets.
  If the COVID-19 virus taught us anything, it has given us a clear 
picture of how vulnerable our unsecured supply chains are. We lean 
heavily on China--too heavily--for things like masks, gloves, gowns, 
ventilators--all the equipment for which the need was skyrocketing 
earlier this year.
  As a result of the fact that the world was dependent on China to 
produce this critical equipment, hospitals reached dangerously low 
levels of personal protective equipment. In the meantime, China refused 
to disclose to the rest of the world that the virus had indeed broken 
out in its country so that it could, in fact, hoard the personal 
protective equipment they knew the rest of the world would need.
  As a result of the lack of a secure supply chain, healthcare workers 
were using a single mask throughout an entire shift, putting both 
themselves and patients at risk. This has been a wake-up call--or 
should have been a wake-up call--on supply chain vulnerabilities and a 
reminder that we need to take action today to secure our supply chains 
for tomorrow.
  One of the biggest of these vulnerabilities we are facing today is a 
lack of domestic semiconductor manufacturing. These chips are 
everywhere in almost every product. They are the underlying technology 
in everything from our cell phones and towers to computers, to 
precision agriculture, to missile defense systems.
  As you can imagine, as technologies have become more sophisticated in 
recent years, the demand for high-end semiconductors has skyrocketed. 
In fact, U.S. companies command 47 percent of the global market of 
these integrated circuit chips. But when it comes to manufacturing, we 
are falling further and further behind.
  Since 2000, the United States has dropped from producing roughly a 
quarter of the world's semiconductors to only 12 percent, and you need 
only one guess as to which country stepped up to manufacture these 
critical devices. You guessed right. It is China.
  In the same period, China has gone from manufacturing zero chips to 
16 percent of the world's supply and plans on investing another $1.4 
trillion in semiconductor technologies.
  America has lost ground to our global competitors, and unless we take 
action, it is estimated that by 2030, 83 percent of the global 
semiconductor manufacturing capacity will be not here but in Asia.
  We need to bring those manufacturing jobs back to the United States 
and provide end-to-end security in our semiconductor supply chain.
  Of course, that is much easier said than done. Building a new 
foundry, which is where these semiconductors are manufactured, is very 
expensive and, quite frankly, will not happen without an investment 
from the Federal Government. The Organization for Economic Cooperation 
and Development estimates that 21 major semiconductor firms across a 
number of countries receive more than $50 billion in government support 
between 2014 and 2018.
  Some of these countries investing in manufacturing of these 
technologies were South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Ireland, Germany, 
and, you guessed it, China. If we are going to regain lost ground in 
semiconductor manufacturing and secure one of our most critical supply 
chains, it is going to take a strategic investment, and that is exactly 
where the CHIPS for America Act will deliver.
  Senator Warner, the distinguished Democratic Senator from Virginia, 
and I have introduced legislation to restore American leadership in 
semiconductor manufacturing and ensure long-term national security and 
economic competitiveness. We worked hand in hand with our colleagues, 
Senator Cotton from Arkansas and Senator Schumer from New York, in 
drafting the amendment before the Senate that we will vote on this 
evening. It is truly a bipartisan product.
  It achieves that goal by creating a Federal incentive program through 
the Department of Commerce to encourage

[[Page S4326]]

semiconductor manufacturing right here in the good old USA. In short, 
it would stimulate domestic advanced semiconductor manufacturing and 
boost both our national security and global competitiveness. It will 
enable us to bring manufacturing of these critical devices back onto 
American soil and eliminate this critical national security and 
economic vulnerability.
  As I mentioned, these chips are literally everywhere. Many of you 
have them in your pockets right now or on your wrists. Semiconductors 
are the foundational technology for our military systems, our critical 
infrastructure, our telecommunications, healthcare, agriculture, and 
manufacturing. We want these devices to run on made-in-America 
semiconductors.
  As we conclude our work on the National defense authorization bill, I 
am glad the Senate has the opportunity to vote on this legislation as 
an amendment. I am grateful to the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Chairman Inhofe, and Ranking Member Reed for making sure 
that happens. This legislation supports a critical goal of the National 
Defense Authorization Act and our national defense strategy, which is 
strategic competition with China. That is where we are right now.
  It prioritizes advancements in the critical technologies that will 
modernize our national defense and restore our competitive edge, all 
while allowing us to secure our most critical supply chains.
  I hope our colleagues will all join me in supporting this legislation 
so that we can reclaim American leadership in semiconductor 
manufacturing, so we can support American jobs, and so we can invest in 
both a strong national security and our economy.


                           Amendment No. 2244

  (Purpose: To restore American leadership in semiconductor 
manufacturing by increasing federal incentives in order to enable 
advanced research and development, secure the supply chain, and ensure 
long-term national security and economic competitiveness.)
  Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2244 and ask that it be 
read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn], for himself and 
     others, proposes an amendment numbered 2244.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan


                        Remembering   John Lewis

  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today with deep sorrow and 
strong determination.
  I am feeling deep sorrow over the loss of one of our Nation's great 
moral leaders and a dear friend of mine, Congressman John Lewis.
  As anyone who had ever met John knows, he was incredibly kind. He was 
a man who had seen so much of our Nation's history and written so much 
of our Nation's history, and yet he still treated everybody with 
dignity and respect. I have been honored to serve alongside him in the 
House and to become his friend.
  He was so supportive of me when I decided to run for the U.S. Senate. 
In fact, I will never forget how knowing that he believed in me helped 
give me the courage to jump into a race against an incumbent Senator.
  I am grieving the loss of my friend.
  I am also determined. Congressman Lewis dedicated his entire life to 
the fight for justice and equality. I am determined to do everything I 
can to do my part to ensure that his life's work continues.
  John Lewis came from very humble beginnings. He was one of 10 
children of Willie Mae and Eddie Lewis, who worked as sharecroppers. 
Making a living off the land has always been hard, but it was even 
harder in the 1940s in the Deep South, where racism and discrimination 
were as relentless as the Alabama Sun.
  Faith in God was essential, and John had that faith in abundance. As 
a child, he wanted to be a preacher, and he certainly could have been. 
From reading Bible verses to the family chickens as a child to speaking 
alongside Dr. King at the March on Washington at just 23 years old, to 
his message at the 55th anniversary of Selma earlier this year, John 
had a preacher's ability to inspire all of us.
  Like a preacher, John knew that words alone aren't enough. When words 
come from the pulpit on Sunday and then they show up on the street on 
Tuesday, that is when the change really happens. John Lewis certainly 
showed up over and over and over again. He sat down at lunch counters. 
He sat in the front of buses. He spent his 21st birthday in jail after 
blocking the entrance to a theater that refused to sell tickets to 
people who look like him.
  He was arrested more than 40 times, beaten by Klansmen, and nearly 
killed marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge.
  He never stopped showing up and causing ``good trouble.'' Just 6 
weeks before he died, he stopped by the Black Lives Matter Plaza here 
in Washington, DC. It was the last time he was seen in public.
  Time and again, John Lewis put his life on the line in order to 
protect people's fundamental rights, including the right to vote. John 
knew that words alone can never be enough, and we have to be willing to 
take action.
  Late last year, the House passed the Voting Rights Advancement Act. 
It would restore section 5 of the Voting Rights Act that was overturned 
by the Supreme Court in 2013. For 228 days, this important bill has 
been gathering dust on Leader McConnell's desk--228 days of inaction.
  Senator Leahy is reintroducing the bill in the Senate as the John R. 
Lewis Voting Rights Act of 2020. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this 
important bill. It is time to pass it and get it signed into law in 
Congressman Lewis's honor.
  At the 55th anniversary of Selma in March, John reminded us what is 
at stake. He said this:

       We were beaten, we were tear-gassed. I thought I was going 
     to die on this bridge. But somehow and some way, God almighty 
     helped me here.

  He added this:

       I'm not going to give up. I'm not going to give in. We're 
     going to continue to fight. . . . We must use the vote as a 
     nonviolent instrument or tool to redeem the soul of America.

  I have seen the soul of America, and that soul looks a lot like my 
friend, John Lewis. I urge us to take up the Voting Rights Act in 
John's name and to pass it as soon as possible and ensure that his 
legacy lives on.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1044

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, a few steps from the Senate Chamber, at 
my whip's office, on the credenza behind my desk, is a framed 
government document. It is my mother's naturalization certificate. She 
was an immigrant to this country. She was brought here at the age of 2 
from Lithuania. She lived long enough to see me being sworn in to the 
U.S. Senate. I am proud of the fact that I stand here today as the son 
of an immigrant. That is my story. It is my family's story. It is 
America's story.
  I believe immigration has made America the Nation that it is today. 
Immigrants are an integral part of our economy, our culture, and our 
soul.
  In the midst of this deadly coronavirus pandemic, we should never 
forget that 1 in 6 healthcare and social service workers--that is 3.1 
million people out of 18.7 million--is an immigrant. They risk their 
lives every day in the midst of this pandemic for the good of this 
Nation. Immigrants are playing this critical role in the battle against 
COVID-19. Yet our broken immigration laws do not allow many of them to 
fulfill their dreams of finally becoming Americans.
  Thousands of immigrant workers, including many health workers, are 
suffering because of a serious problem in our immigration system--the 
green card backlog. What is a green card? A green card is our 
immigration ticket. If you are here as a temporary worker, a green card 
or legal permanent resident status allows you to remain in the United 
States without having fear of

[[Page S4327]]

deportation and to be on a path toward permanent citizenship in the 
United States.
  Green cards are critical in the lives of so many who are here on 
temporary and work visas. The backlog in this system puts families at 
risk of losing their immigration status, as they wait year after weary 
year to finally make it through this green card backlog, and it stops 
their ability, many times, to participate in the fight against COVID-19 
and to work toward building our economy.
  Under the current law, there are not nearly enough immigrant visas--
also known as green cards--available each year. The current numbers for 
140,000 EB immigrant visas were established in 1990--30 years ago. The 
American economy has doubled, but the number of green cards has 
remained the same. As a result, immigrants are stuck in a crippling 
backlog year after year after year. Close to 5 million future Americans 
are in line, waiting for these green cards. Many are working in the 
United States on temporary visas while many are waiting overseas and 
are separated from their families. Only 226,000 family green cards and 
140,000 employment green cards are available each year.
  The backlogs are a real hardship on these families who are caught in 
this immigration limbo. For example, the children in many of these 
families age out and face deportation. How does this happen? Well, 
those applying for the green cards also list their spouses and 
children. If they have to wait a long period of time and the children 
reach the age of 21, they are no longer protected by the parent's 
efforts to obtain the green cards, and they can be deported at any 
time. For many children who age out and face deportation as they reach 
the age of 21, it is a family disaster.
  The solution to this green card backlog is eminently clear to anyone 
who looks at it: Increase the number of green cards. The number that 
might have made sense 30 years ago makes no sense today.
  The senior Senator from Utah, Senator Lee, with whom I have worked on 
previous legislation, has introduced S. 386, known as the Fairness for 
High-Skilled Immigrants Act, to address this issue. I have a basic 
concern with this bill, and I have told Senator Lee. S. 386 adds no 
additional green cards, and without additional green cards, S. 386 will 
not reduce the backlog or the wait.
  Here is what the Congressional Research Service says about Senator 
Lee's legislation. To all of those following this debate, don't take my 
word for it; read the Congressional Research Service's study that was 
released on March 26, 2020, entitled the ``Employment-Based Immigration 
Backlog.'' What does it write about Senator Lee's bill? It writes:

       S. 386 would not reduce future backlogs compared to current 
     law. . . . The total backlog for all three categories [of 
     employment visas] would increase from an estimated 915,497 
     individuals currently to an estimated 2,195,795 individuals 
     by FY2030. These outcomes would occur whether or not S. 386 
     is enacted [and here are the operative words] because the 
     bill maintains the current limit on the number of green cards 
     issued.

  That is the bottom line. If you don't change the number of green 
cards and 5 million people are in the queue, waiting for 140,000 
employment green cards and 226,000 family green cards, you understand 
the math.
  Despite my concerns that S. 386 would not work as intended, I agreed 
to sit down with Senator Lee and work in good faith to resolve our 
differences. Last December, we reached an agreement on an amendment to 
his bill that addressed many of these concerns.
  I want to be clear. This amendment was far from perfect and not what 
I would have written. The biggest problem is that it still does not 
increase the number of green cards. As a result, it would not eliminate 
the backlog. But it has made a substantial improvement to his original 
bill.
  Here is how it reads:

       It protects immigrants and their families who are stuck in 
     the backlog. Immigrant workers and their immediate family 
     members would be allowed to ``early file'' [a provision that 
     Senator Lee suggested and I accepted] for their green cards. 
     They would not receive their green cards early, but they 
     would be able to switch jobs and travel without losing 
     immigration status.

  I thought that was fair. Early filing adds a critical protection that 
was not in the original Lee S. 386. It prevents the children of 
immigrant workers from aging out of green card eligibility so that they 
will not face deportation while they are waiting for green cards.
  Our agreement also included a green card set-aside for immigrant 
workers who were stuck in the backlog overseas. The amendment would 
reserve 4,600 green cards on an annual basis for immigrant workers who 
would not be eligible for early filing because they would be outside 
the United States. This number is based on the approximate number of 
people who apply for employment green cards from overseas each year.
  Finally, our agreement would crack down on the abuse of H-1B 
temporary work visas. I thought this was going to be an easy provision. 
It has turned out to be the real problem in this bill, and let me tell 
you why. The amendment prohibits companies from hiring additional H-1B 
workers if the companies' workforces have more than 50 employees and if 
more than 50 percent are temporary workers. This 50-50 rule is from the 
bipartisan H-1B reform bill that I offered with Senator Grassley, 
Republican of Iowa. This provision was included in the comprehensive 
immigration reform bill, which I voted for and which passed in the 
Senate. Senator Lee has said, ``This is a commonsense reform to root 
out abuse.''
  When most people think of the H-1B visa, they think of well-known 
companies--Microsoft, Google--that hire top-notch professionals at top 
dollar when no American is available. That is how the program was 
supposed to work, but the reality is different. In fact, the top 
recipients of H-1B visas are outsourcing companies that use loopholes 
in the law to exploit immigrant workers and even offshore American 
jobs.
  In the most recent year for which data is available, 8 of the top 10 
recipients of new H-1B visas were outsourcing companies. The vice 
president of one of them, Tata--one of the leading firms--candidly 
acknowledged that it uses H-1Bs to exploit immigrant workers.
  He said:

       Our wage per employee is 20-25 percent lesser than the U.S. 
     wage for a similar employee. . . . The issue is that of 
     getting workers in the U.S. on wages far lower than local 
     wage.

  It is important to understand that the vast majority of immigrant 
workers in the backlog in the United States is on an H-1B temporary 
work visa. So if we want to stop the future exploitation of immigrant 
workers and the displacement of American workers, we have to stop the 
abuse of H-1B visas.
  Back in December, I asked my Democratic colleagues to support this 
bipartisan agreement that Senator Lee and I reached. They all agreed. I 
told Senator Lee that I wanted to move immediately to solve this 
problem. There were so many people whose lives were tied up in this 
debate. However, Senator Lee asked me for more time to discuss it with 
his colleagues. I agreed.
  In March, 3 months later, Senator Lee told me he wanted to make 
significant changes in the agreement, and he said that without these 
changes he could no longer support it.
  Some of the changes were made at the request of the Trump 
administration, which I will note is not exactly the most reliable or 
objective source on advice on immigration. Let me briefly explain the 
changes Senator Lee demanded.
  The original version of Senator Lee's bill provides that no 
individual who had already been approved for a green card would receive 
the green card at a later time than they otherwise would have. This 
provision, known as a hold harmless clause, is a critical protection 
that assures immigrants who have been waiting years, patiently, in line 
that nothing we do on the floor will change the number of years they 
have to wait--perhaps improve them but not make them worse.
  Now, at the request of the Trump administration, Senator Lee wants to 
delete this hold harmless provision which was in his original bill. 
That would jeopardize many people who are innocently waiting patiently 
for their opportunity.
  Second, Senator Lee wants to delay for 3 years the effective date of 
the 50-50 rule to crack down on outsourcing companies.
  Why on Earth would we give companies that are outsourcing American

[[Page S4328]]

jobs and exploiting immigrant workers a free pass for 3 more years?
  Third, at the request of the Trump administration, Senator Lee wanted 
to make two changes that would allow early filing for people who are 
stuck in the green card backlog. He would delay early filing for 1 
year--1 more year for children to age out; 1 more year for them to 
wait. Why?
  That means that any children who age out in the meantime lose their 
chance for a green card and will be subject to deportation.
  He would also require that immigrant workers could only ``early 
file'' after their green card petition had been approved for 2 years--a 
2-year delay on top of a 3-year delay. Any children who had aged out 
during this new 2-year waiting period would not be protected and would 
also be subject to deportation.
  Why is Senator Lee--or at least those in the Trump administration 
advising him--so afraid that these children might have a future in 
America?
  When we met in March, I told Senator Lee these changes were not 
acceptable. It has now been 7 months since Senator Lee and I reached 
our original agreement and more than 4 months since we met in March. 
Immigrants who are stuck in the backlog and their children have waited 
long enough.
  I am now going to ask unanimous consent on my agreement with Senator 
Lee from December 2019--the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, 
as amended by the Lee substitute amendment.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the 
Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1044, 
Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, and the Senate proceed to its 
immediate consideration; further, that the Lee amendment at the desk be 
agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and 
passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I am a 
little flabbergasted at this moment, when I find myself in a rare 
circumstance of disagreeing with literally every word uttered by my 
colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois. He is my friend. He and I 
have worked together on a number of issues--criminal justice reform, 
protecting the civil liberties of Americans when it comes to domestic 
surveillance, all kinds of things on the Judiciary Committee.
  I disagree with nearly every single word, every syllable he just 
uttered. I find myself wondering whether we experienced alternate 
universes in recent months.
  I have worked nearly the entire time I have been in the U.S. Senate 
on this issue--for years, nearly 9\1/2\ years, on discrete pieces of 
legislation, trying to fix immigration. Immigration is a big issue. It 
is a contentious issue. It is an issue as to which, to put it mildly, 
there is not always bipartisan consensus. It is one of the areas that I 
have concluded remains open and possible for bipartisan agreement, is 
on taking discrete, individual problem areas within our immigration 
code and updating them and modernizing them.
  So what we are talking here today about is a bill that I have long 
championed, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. My sole 
purpose for championing that legislation--frankly, at great personal 
expense to myself, at great political expense--was to bring some equity 
to a system that unduly burdens some immigrants based on their country 
of origin and based, specifically, on the arbitrary factor of the 
population of the nation of origin of the immigrant in question.
  There has been a lot of misinformation at both ends of the political 
spectrum, at every point in between, about this legislation. It has 
been attacked from the right, from the left, from everywhere else. A 
lot of people claim falsely that it would change the total number of 
green cards available. It wouldn't, as Senator Durbin just 
acknowledged. That is one of the few things that he said just now with 
which I think I can agree.
  But over the years, we have had a number of Senators objecting to 
this for different reasons. Every time we resolve one objection--
sometimes we will resolve two objections, and then one other will pop 
up. Then we will resolve that one, and three others will pop up. We 
have been doing this for years and years, and I have worked in good 
faith with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in order to resolve 
those concerns.
  Now, most recently, Senator Durbin objected to it. Just as I have 
with each objector before him, I worked with Senator Durbin last fall 
in order to resolve some of his concerns with the legislation.
  In December, as he states, we came to an agreement. We came to an 
agreement on a way that we could move forward. We set some objectives, 
and he accurately characterized many of those objectives. What I told 
Senator Durbin at the time was that I was reluctant to announce that 
publicly because we hadn't yet made or received a request or a response 
to our request for technical assistance and input from the affected 
agencies--most importantly, from the State Department and from USCIS.
  At the time, Senator Durbin requested that we go to the floor; that 
we introduce it. I, reluctantly, and perhaps against my better 
judgment, agreed to do that, in part based on the fact that Senator 
Durbin was taking a lot of heat at the time. People were saying that he 
was opposed to the idea categorically, and I wanted to work with him in 
good faith to do it.
  At the time we had that discussion--at the time the Senator and I 
made that agreement--I made absolutely abundantly clear we still needed 
to get technical input, and we still needed to get the input of 
cosponsors of the legislation.
  But out of consideration for the Senator and a lot of the political 
heat you were taking at the time, I agreed, with that understanding, to 
go to the floor and announce that we had reached an agreement in 
principle.
  I have honored every single piece of that agreement in principle, and 
I strongly resent your suggestion to the contrary--every single piece 
of it. There is not one substantive piece of this as to which I have 
changed--not one of them, not the 50-50 rule, not the 4,600 set-aside, 
not the early filing.
  The changes that we made were in response to the technical assistance 
request that we made to USCIS and a couple from the State Department. 
They had almost entirely to do with what was feasible, what was 
administratively possible to implement the legislation. After all, we 
don't want to enact legislation that cannot be implemented without 
compromising the other responsibilities that that agency has.
  So after seeking this feedback, we understood that the language, as 
written, was, in some respects, technically not feasible for USCIS to 
implement as we had written it. But, here again, I told him: We 
inevitably will have to make some modifications based on the 
feasibility of this.
  So I went back to Senator Durbin, and in light of the USCIS comments 
and the response to our request for technical assistance from USCIS, we 
made some changes. I went back to Senator Durbin. My recollection is 
that it was in February. You say March. I believe it was February. But 
regardless, I came back to you, and I told you: We are honoring the 
agreement. We are going to have to delay the implementation of some of 
it so as to make it technically feasible.
  Some of these provisions were modified somewhat as to the timing of 
their implementation, but we honored the spirit and the letter of our 
agreement.
  And yet, when we presented these changes to Senator Durbin, he 
flatout rejected them, almost without any discussion at all and almost 
without any discussion about how these materially departed from the 
agreement we had reached in December in good faith that we announced 
the existence of on the Senate floor, against my better judgment, out 
of the goodness of my heart, given the amount of political pressure 
Senator Durbin was getting on this. And he refused, at that point, to 
continue negotiations.
  This, by the way, was after months and months of trying to get him to 
negotiate; months and months of trying to get him to the table that we 
reached, finally, in December.
  So I find it astounding. If the Senator is, once again, feeling the 
political expediency to do so, I am happy to continue these discussions 
with him, but

[[Page S4329]]

don't come here and suggest falsely, as he just has, that I have 
materially departed from the agreement we reached because I did not.
  Now, I hope that he is as willing as I am to allow businesses a 
window of time to come into compliance with the new 50-50 rule so that 
we don't unnecessarily burden the H1-B workers who are already here. 
That is what my changes do, is make it so we don't unduly burden those.
  I hope the Senator is as willing as I am to extend the transition 
period before the per-country caps are fully lifted to allow immigrants 
from around the world the opportunity to ease into the process.

  I hope he is willing, as I am, to tackle one major immigration 
problem at a time in the hope of improving the condition of immigrants 
in our country without insisting on poison pills.
  If there is one thing we have learned about immigration reform in 
recent years is that if you try to reform everything at once, you will 
guarantee the failure of the bill. I hope that is not what you are 
trying to do here, but that is the effect it has when you try to add in 
other extraneous points.
  Never, by the way, was there ever a discussion about increasing the 
total number of visas in this. That was never the objective. I never 
hinted at that. You acknowledged that in every one of our discussions.
  If you are interested in these principles, as I am, we should be able 
to find a path forward because all of these changes--all the changes we 
made to our agreement--were simply made out of expediency in order to 
be able to ensure that the legislation could, in fact, move forward; 
that it was feasible to implement; that it could resolve the concerns 
that you expressed to me and could do so in a manner to ensure the best 
possible outcome.
  If Senator Durbin can agree on these changes, we can pass this 
legislation. We can pass it not just today, we can pass it right now, 
this very moment. I call on him to do so.
  If the Senator feels he can work with these changes, I am happy to do 
that as well.
  As I said in February, my door is open, and I am always willing to 
talk about these things with the Senator if he is willing to work with 
me.
  So I ask that the Senator modify his request to withdraw the 
amendment at the desk and include my new amendment, which is at the 
desk, the amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, 
be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, let me 
say to Senator Lee, the changes he came back with were significant.
  Removing the hold harmless provision, to me, is fundamentally unfair 
to anyone who has been waiting patiently for a green card. Why would 
the Senator jeopardize anyone and make them wait even longer for a 
green card? That was one of the modifications he suggested.
  The two other modifications the Senator suggested delayed protection 
for children that left them subject to deportation for 2 to 3 years. 
Why would we do that? We both agree that is a terrible outcome. That 
was one of his modifications as well.
  As far as the 50-50 rule, listen, I believe that is what is driving 
this conversation. These outsourcing companies make a bundle of money, 
and there are people who want to keep them in business and making 
money, even at the expense of American workers, and I think that is 
wrong. I really do.
  I can't believe that that is what is really going to stop us now at 
this point, to try to protect these outsourcing companies for 3 years 
before this provision affects them.
  As far as what we can do here today, I think what I am going to offer 
next is going to be the simplest thing we can achieve and maybe more at 
a later date. But let us protect the children. That is the next thing I 
am going to offer.
  Let us protect the children and make sure that as they are waiting in 
line, they can't age out and be deported. That is not an unreasonable 
request.
  So I am going to refuse to agree to the modification, but I will 
offer protection for the children next, and I hope--let's agree on that 
today and continue the rest of the discussion beyond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, look, the 
hold harmless issue was taken care of with the 3- to 9-year transition. 
That is why we made the 3- to 9-year transition, was to take care of 
the hold harmless provision.
  Now, if the Senator wants to negotiate the terms of that, we can talk 
about that right now. We can resolve that right now. But make no 
mistake, the Senator is fundamentally changing and altering the terms 
of what we agreed to, and he is accusing me of, fundamentally, 
materially, changing the terms of the agreement, when all I have done 
is what we agreed to in December.
  What the Senator is suggesting here is a deviation from what is 
possible. I can't agree to what is not possible, to what contravenes 
what USCIS has said it is capable of implementing. On that basis, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I have a few minutes more to close this 
debate. I ask forbearance of those who are prepared for the 4 p.m. 
vote. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is withdrawn.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I am sorry we were unable to reach an 
agreement today.
  The proposal which I am about to make, called the Protect Children of 
Immigrant Workers Act, simply ensures that children will not age out in 
this process.
  How many times do parents come to me with tears in their eyes saying: 
Don't hurt my child.
  Here is our chance, as we work out all the other issues, to take care 
of this one provision. It would not increase the number of green cards. 
It does not get into the other issues we have debated. I ask the 
Senator to please, for the sake of these children, give them the 
protections, and let us continue to try and negotiate the other 
provisions.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of my bill, the Protect Children of Immigrant Workers 
Act, which is at the desk; that the bill be considered read three times 
and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it should have 
been brought forward. We would have loved to have considered it. I 
haven't seen it yet. My staff saw it for the first time earlier today. 
I would love to have a look at it.
  This is something that could have been brought up at any moment in 
the last six or seven months, or the last year. I would be happy to 
look at it now, but I can't agree to pass something that I have not 
seen. So, therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the interest of the moment, I cannot 
offer my third amendment, but I will say this: It will be back. This is 
a chance to do something for the children. It is very simple. You know 
what it is. Let's do this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I could not agree more. We should do this. I 
could not agree more that we need to eliminate the outdated, outmoded 
Elvis Presley era immigration provision that discriminates against 
individuals on the basis of their country of origin, on the basis of 
the population of the country in which they were born.
  There are reasons why immigration policy is a contentious one. There 
were reasons why previous efforts have

[[Page S4330]]

failed, and it always has to do with the fact that people tend to pile 
on. They get desperate. It is hard for us to reform the immigration 
code. When somebody suggests 1 reform, others suggest 10 more, and, 
before long, it chokes the horse. You can't move forward with it.
  This one is focused on a very simple concept, that regardless of how 
many visas we issue, regardless of how many green cards we issue, there 
are a lot of ways to allocate the number that we have. Let's start with 
the number we have and figure out whatever reasons ought to influence 
that decision. Among them should not be the country in which you were 
born.
  Imagine two hypothetical would-be employment-based green card 
recipients who are otherwise eligible. Immigrant A and B are identical 
in all respects--in their employment qualifications, their education, 
proficiency in English, and every meaningful characteristic except one. 
Immigrant A happens to be born in Luxembourg and immigrant B happens to 
have been born in India. Because India has a large population and 
Luxembourg has a small population, the immigrant from India is going to 
be discriminated against.
  It is senseless and based on a bygone era in which immigration policy 
didn't make sense by today's standards. We ought to be able to get 
around that.
  I agree with Mr. Durbin that we should pass this right now. There is 
no reason not to.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 1729

  Mr. INHOFE. I call up amendment No. 1729 and ask that it be reported 
by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1729 to amendment No. 2301.

  The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To increase funding for the study by the Centers for Disease 
 Control and Prevention relating to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl 
               substance contamination in drinking water)

       At the end of subtitle B of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3___. INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR STUDY BY CENTERS FOR 
                   DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION RELATING TO 
                   PERFLUOROALKYL AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCE 
                   CONTAMINATION IN DRINKING WATER.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Increase.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     this Act for fiscal year 2021 for Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense Wide for SAG 4GTN for the study by the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention under section 316(a)(2)(B)(ii) 
     of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2018 (Public Law 115-91; 131 Stat. 1350) is hereby increased 
     by $5,000,000.
       (2) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     this Act for fiscal year 2021 for Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army for SAG 421, Servicewide Transportation is hereby 
     reduced by $5,000,000.
       (b) Increase in Transfer Authority.--Section 
     316(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91; 131 Stat. 1350), as 
     amended by section 315(a) of the John S. McCain National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 
     115-232; 132 Stat. 1713), is amended by striking 
     ``$10,000,000'' and inserting ``$15,000,000''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 60-
affirmative vote threshold with respect to the Shaheen amendment No. 
1729 be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. For the information of all Senators, it is my 
understanding that we should be able to adopt the amendment by voice 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1729) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2244

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  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 bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 134 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--4

     Lee
     Paul
     Shelby
     Toomey
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). On this vote, the yeas are 96, 
the nays are 4.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of the 
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


                                S. 4049

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, right now, we are in the middle of what I 
have referred to several times as what I consider to be the most 
significant bill of the year, the National Defense Authorization Act--
one that you can almost be sure will pass. This will be the 60th 
consecutive year it has passed. That is a pretty good indication it is 
going to pass.
  That comes with problems, however. People know that a bill is going 
to pass, so you get a lot of pieces of legislation that had not been 
able to get passed, and it may be a whole year, and it becomes a part 
of this bill. It is more than just the Defense authorization bill, but 
it is the most significant one.
  Before we even came to the floor, we did something that we have been 
working on now--at least I know personally--for 4 years, and that is to 
put ourselves in a position where just in case we find ourselves where 
we can't get amendments--all it takes is one person to object, and 
there will be no amendments if this happens. We decided to go ahead and 
put this bill together and do it in such a way that the Members are 
actually drafting the bill. We have 700 Member items.
  You might remember that back in January, we started talking about 
this, saying: If you want to have an amendment in the Defense 
authorization bill, even though it is not going to become effective 
until a year from December, you better get down there and do it because 
now is the time you can get that done. Well, we ended up with 700 
Member items, and that was before we even got to the floor, and then 
more were added. We added another 140 amendments after that.
  You can say that this bill was passed by you--I am talking about the 
Members, Democrats and Republicans--in the Chamber because these items 
all came out of it. We didn't do it the way it used to be done. We kind 
of eased into this, but it has worked very well. I commend Liz and John 
for the work they do in holding everyone together in making this a 
reality.
  Where we are right now is, we have had a lot of our Members coming to 
the floor. My staff and I are continuing to work on the inclusion of 
additional amendments. If you will recall, 2 weeks ago, when we took a 
break for the Fourth of July, we agreed upon some legislation, some 
amendments that would be a part of this. They are all structured right 
now. We have already passed two--actually, passed four today. We have 
another bunch of amendments, including a managers' package. It was 
hotlined today, just today. We don't have the results of that yet. 
People may have objected to it, and I am just not aware--apparently, 
there have been some objections. I don't know what the count is. We 
will

[[Page S4331]]

keep trying to get as many amendments as possible. My experience is 
that this means we are nearing the end of the road.
  I would have to say this about my partner in this effort--he has been 
my partner for a number of years, Jack Reed, on the minority side. We 
have both worked hand in glove in trying to get as many amendments as 
possible, and we have set a record this year with either amendments or 
letters from Members.
  I am going do something that will make a bunch of people mad, but I 
don't really care. You hear so much negative stuff. I have said several 
times that when this President came in, up to the moment that we had 
the virus, we had the best economy we have had in my lifetime. All 
indications show that was true.
  He did this in a way that was thought out, and it wasn't all a 
Republican idea. Back when John Kennedy was President of the United 
States, that is when they were expanding the Great Society. This is a 
quote. He said: We are going to have to have a lot more revenue to take 
care of the Great Society programs. The best way to increase revenue is 
to decrease marginal rates--marginal tax rates. And it worked. 
Unfortunately, he died right after that and could not see the benefits 
of the efforts of this great idea.
  This was done again during the Bush administration. It was the first 
thing that was done by the Trump administration. But he did something 
different this time, and this is the reason that it produced much more 
revenue than the others had produced in years past. He said: We also 
need to reduce the regulations at the same time.
  I am very sensitive to this because I chaired the Environment and 
Public Works Committee during the time the Republicans were in the 
minority. During the Obama administration, we had so many regulations, 
and that had to be changed.
  Even the Chair is probably not aware that this is a regulation that 
was passed during the Obama administration, but it is one which said 
that if you are a domestic oil or gas company and you are in 
competition with China or somebody else, you have to give them your 
playbook--how you calculated your rates. That put them at a decided 
advantage.
  When I was fortunate enough to get to know this President, prior to 
the time he took office, I was suggesting and he was saying: What would 
be a good place to start in reducing regulations?
  I said: A good one would be to do away with that regulation that was 
passed.
  I think it was only a week after he took office that we passed the 
first regulation. That is just one example. But then regulation after 
regulation after regulation--those of us who have grown up in the 
business world know that is what costs money. And liberals have never 
figured that out.
  Anyway, this has happened. As a result of this, we have had really 
great benefits. I bring this up now because--put the Johnson family up. 
This is a family in Oklahoma. It is the Johnson family, Charlie 
Johnson. He has several brothers, and he has a son named Andrew. They 
are in the tree business. They find people who want to get rid of dead 
trees, unwanted trees, and they get rid of the trees. They are the best 
there are. They have been doing it now very competitively and doing it 
for years.
  When he came to take a tree out during the 2 weeks--I am talking 
about less than 2 weeks ago--he said: We can do this, but I want to 
tell you that we are really busy now. In fact, our business is better 
than it has ever been in the history of our country. It is all because 
of what has happened with the President.
  These are his words. He said: I know everybody hates the President. 
The media hates the President. But we love him, and let me tell you 
why. We are now doing better than we have ever done before. Our 
business is better than it ever has been.
  He has a brother who specialized--when you are in the tree business, 
you specialize. If you look, you can't see the bucket, but the son is 
in the bucket. Another one is the guy who has developed a way of 
grinding stumps. Almost anyone can take a tree out, but to grind a 
stump, you have to have very expensive equipment.
  A few days after I had seen these people, I got a visit by a guy 
named Brad Johnson. Brad is the one who specializes in stump grinding. 
He said: Our business is so good now--and they all credit the President 
with this--our business is so good that I decided I would go off on my 
own and buy a stump grinder. It is very, very expensive. No one ever 
thought it would be, but it is. Now I think he owns the only stump 
grinder in Delaware County in Oklahoma.
  He said: I want you to do something. I know you will be going back to 
Washington. I am going to give you this, and I want you to give this to 
the President of the United States.
  It says: ``Brad's stump grinding.'' I am going to give this to the 
President of the United States and take his picture.
  I only say all this to mention that good things are happening around 
here. Things had not been this good, except for the virus problem. No 
one had any control over that in terms of the President. When I stop 
and think about how good our economy was right before the virus hit, I 
think: If we had an average economy, where would we be today?
  Anyway, that was the good news, and I was excited to tell them I was 
going to share this with a few other people.
  Earlier today, I mentioned I would be coming down to the floor to 
talk about our troop basing in Germany. Those of us on the committee 
know we have been working on this for a long time.
  Secretary of Defense Mark Esper was putting something together where 
he was going around and reevaluating our troop and asset distribution 
around the world. I disagree with some of the things he came up with.
  Africa, for example, is an area where they are starting to have some 
very serious problems. If anything, it is going to end up taking more 
activity. Along with other Members, I will be receiving detailed 
briefings from the Department of Defense on plans to carry out the 
President's decision in the coming days and weeks.
  Based on my conversation with Secretary Esper and the briefings I 
have received so far, the goal is to optimize our force posture in 
Europe, in part by moving some of our forces along NATO's eastern 
flank. It has always been in Western Europe. Going forward, as I think 
about the plan to realign our posture in Europe, I am thinking about 
the three guiding principles that I call the ``3 Fs.''
  First is the forward presence--maintaining a strong presence in 
Europe that gives our troops what they need to deter Russia and, if 
necessary, to fight and win and defeat Russia. I like the idea of 
rotational forces in southeast Europe.
  The second one is force protection. Really, force projection is more 
accurate. It is keeping strong, established bases for staging, air 
capacity, and more. For example, at Ramstein Air Force Base, we have 
invested quite a lot of money in that. It is going to work for any 
future use in readjustments that take place in Europe. What I am saying 
is a lot of things are going on in Europe that are going to be 
enhanced, as opposed to being transferred.
  The third is families. This is kind of interesting. Take our Air 
Force in Tinker Air Force Base. There is a young lady who is the wife 
of a worker at Tinker Air Force Base. Her name is Janna Driver. This 
was 2 years ago. She told me that we have a problem at Tinker. When we 
privatized our housing, it worked out fine for a long period of time, 
but then it seemed to be that people got greedy in the housing. They 
talked about deplorable conditions in housing. I thought: My gosh, this 
is my home State of Oklahoma. Thank goodness it is just one military 
establishment.
  Then I found out it was in all five of our military establishments. 
Then I found out it wasn't just in Oklahoma. It was around the world.
  This is something that is very significant because when you look at 
the problems that they have with so many people--and I will be 
addressing this in a little more detail in a minute because of the 
amendment that will be before us tomorrow--the problem is that we do 
something different than other countries do. I have heard this over and 
over, and I am sure the Presiding Officer has also heard.
  We talk about all the money we spend on defense in the United States,

[[Page S4332]]

and yet we spend more money than Russia and China put together. They 
are our strategic oppositions out there.
  That is true because the most expensive part of the military is the 
people. People don't understand that. We want housing, and we want to 
make sure there are schools for the kids. We want to make sure all 
these things are going on. That is what costs the money. That is the 
reason.
  If you are in a communist country, they give you a gun and say: Go 
out and kill people--and the problem is solved.
  We are concerned about our families. They make a lot of sacrifices. 
Every few years, our families have to move, change locations, and the 
kids have to change schools. They move to another area. Then, if the 
spouse has a job, they have to try to get a job.
  By the way, in this bill we have some help. We get relief from some 
of the regulations that normally take a long period of time, so that 
spouses are able to get a job at a new location. That is something a 
lot of people are not aware of that is in this great bill.
  They have to change hometowns, change houses, change doctors, and the 
kids change schools. Of course, they live with the reality that their 
servicemember is putting their life on the line to defend our country. 
We have to be grateful and never take that sacrifice for granted. That 
is why we should be trying to ease the burden of our military families 
in everything we do.
  When it comes to this plan we are talking about, which is changing 
the forces around, primarily in Europe, that is what you hear more 
about. It is important that we do it right and we do it right away. It 
is going to take some time to do, but we need to get started.
  The reason I am really excited about this program is that this is not 
something new. If I have good memories, you might remember back when 
Gen. Jim Jones was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO at that time. I 
had gone to him and said: You know, one thing we really need to be 
doing is to start readjusting where we have our troops.
  At that time, we had a lot of troops, as we do today, in Germany and 
a lot of training was taking place there. But because of the 
environmental movement in Germany, they were giving us restrictions, 
saying you can only train with live ordnance maybe every 4 days a week 
and not past sunset and all of that.
  We were thinking that we were really doing a great thing for Germany 
by stationing all our people over there because of all the money they 
spend and all that. Yet they are not really trying to help us.

  We did some surveying. This is kind of funny because John Bonsell, 
the staff director of my committee on the Republican side, and I went 
over to the different countries--Bulgaria, Poland, and other different 
countries in that part of the world, in the eastern part of Europe. We 
said: Are you willing to help us out? They said: Not only can you use 
your ordnances as much as you want, but at the same time, we will help 
billet you and all that.
  The program was good and strongly supported by Gen. Jim Jones at that 
time.
  We did all we could to put that together, and we were visiting our 
allies about it. We already had Ukraine, Bulgaria and Romania lined up. 
They call that the lily pad approach to basic. It was something that 
would work. There is no reason not to do that.
  Unfortunately, President Bush decided he didn't want to do it. We 
were unsuccessful getting that done. I have been fighting about that 
with other Presidents since that time. I have not gotten any of them to 
look at that and the great values that would make for us.
  Anyway, that is something that is taking place right now. We don't 
know, but we are going to get a Member briefing tomorrow that is going 
to give us a lot of details on what is going to happen and what the 
President is proposing in that area of Europe.
  I want to speak about one of the amendments that is next up. Senator 
Sanders' amendment would cut defense spending by 10 percent. I happen 
to be very close with Senator Sanders, but we have areas where we 
disagree with each other. This is one of those areas. I looked at this, 
and I thought: He has an amendment that would cut defense spending by 
10 percent.
  First of all, this amendment would break the bipartisan budget 
agreement of 2019 that we passed. Congress passed this agreement last 
December with a bipartisan support, and the President signed it into 
law. The fiscal year 2021 NDAA, or National Defense Authorization Act--
the bill that we are working on right now, as we speak--fulfills this 
agreement and provides a total of $740.5 billion for our national 
defense. I would have preferred to see a higher number at that time, 
but it is now the law of the land.
  Even though the amount is lower than ideal, having budgetary 
certainty is critical. It is what our military leaders ask for every 
time they come before the committee that I chair and before Senator 
Shelby's committee. They need on-time, predictable, and stable funding 
to do their job. And their jobs are only getting harder right now. Our 
adversaries are investing in their militaries and building new and 
advanced weapons systems and acting more aggressively than we have ever 
seen before in any of our adversaries.
  The national defense strategy describes this. This is a document, by 
the way, that we adhered to. This is put together by six Republicans 
and six Democrats. It is one of these things where it was bipartisan. 
Everyone agreed on it. People who put this together were experts, and 
we have followed it to the letter ever since that time.
  This is the National Defense Strategy Commission report, which is a 
bipartisan document written by six Democrats and six Republicans. They 
tell us that we need to increase our defense budget each year. We 
already know we need to be increasing our budget just to stay 
competitive. We have already agreed to this total.
  Now, one of the criticisms I hear of our defense budget is that we 
pay much more than other countries. As I have already explained, we are 
the ones who have to pay to take care of our people--our troops, their 
families, their kids. Here is the problem with that argument: Other 
countries don't have to do that.
  Beyond the troops, we also take care of the families and all that, 
while others don't do that.
  This is significant. China and Russia are rapidly modernizing their 
militaries. When I say this in public and I talk to groups, I don't 
have credibility. It doesn't sound like it is possible.
  I don't say this critically of the Obama administration. The Obama 
administration, by his own admission, had other priorities. One of them 
wasn't a strong military. During the last 5 years--and I am talking 
about 2010 to 2015, during those last 5 years of using the President's 
budget, he decreased the amount of money for our military by 25 
percent. In 5 years, he decreased it by 25 percent. At the same time, 
Russia increased theirs by 34 percent, and China increased theirs by 83 
percent.
  Stop and think about that. Our adversaries were out there building 
and getting ahead of us in different areas. It is important to note 
that the bill exempts military pay and the defense health program, 
which means this amendment is actually the equivalent to a 14-percent 
cut. I am talking about cuts in airplanes and equipment and assets that 
are military assets. This means the nuclear modernization and key 
research that help us stay competitive with Russia. This is something 
that arguably cannot be done.
  It means cuts to military construction, including schools for 
military kids, programs that support military families, and programs 
that support our troops' morale and welfare. It is just plain wrong.
  Our military combat commanders tell me and the committee that they 
need on-time, predictable, and stable funding to do their jobs. This 
amendment would actually cut that by 14 percent in the areas that 
concern people. In the strongest possible terms, I urge a ``no'' vote 
on this amendment.
  All this is going to happen while we continue to face the burden that 
a pandemic has placed on our military. Our military is a key part of 
the whole-of-government response to the virus.
  Our competitors haven't given us a free pass while this is all 
happening. In fact, we have seen China and Russia take advantage of 
this situation, and

[[Page S4333]]

they have been acting more aggressively. At the same time, the 
Department of Defense is working to protect our troops and the civilian 
workforce from the virus, and this needs to continue to be a top 
priority. Everyone understands that. In fact, rather than cutting the 
defense budget, we actually need to support the military COVID response 
with additional funding.
  Take this one example. The defense industrial companies have done a 
great job to ensure that their suppliers--primarily thousands of small 
businesses--stay open and keep employees paid.
  In the CARES Act, we gave the DOD the authority and the tools to 
reimburse these companies to keep the defense workforce strong, but the 
DOD needs money to use these tools. If we don't help these companies, 
defense weapons programs and maintenance will suffer more cost 
overruns, and the defense industrial base will lose experienced and 
trained workers, which means schedule delays will be more likely. These 
will be primarily the small companies. These will not be the giants 
that are out there.
  This would be a good investment for our national defense and a good 
investment for the American taxpayer. Now is simply not the time to be 
cutting our defense budget when we should be doing more. I know the 
author of the bill who would cut defense spending by 10 percent is very 
sincere and really believes in his bill, but it is not the time to do 
it.
  I hope people understand that we are now in a position wherein there 
are actually different resources that are in Russia and in China that 
are better than ours. Hypersonic weapons are a good example. Hypersonic 
weapons are kind of state-of-the-art in both offense and defense, and 
they are ahead of us. They are ahead of us right now.
  With this budget we are going to be passing, I think that we are 
going to be making broad steps to recapture those areas in which we had 
previously been the leaders but now are not the leaders any longer.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Student Loan Repayment and FAFSA Simplification Act

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in March, Congress and the President 
said to 43 million student loan borrowers that, because of COVID-19, 
your student loan payments will be deferred until October 1--no monthly 
payments for 6 months for student loan borrowers.
  October 1 is just around the corner. So what do we say to those 43 
million student loan borrowers today? I propose that we say this:
  No. 1, if there is no income, there is no monthly payment. In other 
words, if you have a student loan, your monthly payment is zero--if you 
don't have any income for whatever reason.
  No. 2, when you do begin earning income, your monthly payment will 
never be more than 10 percent of your income after you deduct the 
necessities of life, such as the cost of housing--rent or mortgage--and 
food.
  No. 3, the same generous loan forgiveness that exists today for 
student loan borrowers will still exist. After 20 years of payments for 
undergraduate loans and 25 years of payments for graduate loans, if you 
still have an outstanding loan balance, your loan will be forgiven, and 
that will include all of the months your payment was zero because you 
didn't have any income.
  These same policies--no income, no monthly payment--will be offered 
to students who take out new loans in addition to these policies being 
offered to existing student loan borrowers.
  Under my proposal, new and existing student loan borrowers will be 
offered one other option for paying back their loans. This option would 
be like a 10-year mortgage: Make equal principal and interest monthly 
payments over 10 years until the loan is paid off. Some borrowers may 
prefer this option because it could mean paying less interest. Every 
borrower would be eligible to switch from one option--the income-based 
payment--to the other option
  The remaining good news in this proposal is that the concurrent 
bewildering system of nine different ways of paying off your student 
loan would be thrown in the trash heap and replaced by these two 
straightforward proposals: No. 1, the income-based repayment option, 
and No. 2, the 10-year, mortgage-like option. These changes will give 
some peace of mind to the 43 million current borrowers and the tens of 
millions of Americans who are expected to sign up for new student loans 
over the next 10 years.
  These ideas are neither new nor my ideas. They have been recommended 
by higher education experts numerous times when having testified before 
the Senate Education Committee during the past 6 years while we have 
considered reauthorizing the Higher Education Act. The concepts have 
also been suggested by many Senators on both sides of the aisle, 
Democrats and Republicans, including Senators King, Burr, Rubio, 
Merkley, Portman, Warner, Wicker, Manchin, Shaheen, and Collins. All of 
them have suggested these concepts.
  While we are simplifying the student loan repayment system, I propose 
that we also finish the job of reducing the Federal loan application of 
grants and loans--which everyone calls FAFSA--from about 108 questions 
to 20 to 33 questions. This is an enterprise that a number of us, both 
Democrats and Republicans, have been working on for years, including 
Senators Murray, Bennet, Jones, King, Collins, Whitehouse, Gardner, 
Cornyn, Stabenow, Tillis, and Hassan. So, you see, there is an unusual 
amount of bipartisan support for both of these ideas.
  Experts before the Senate Education Committee have testified that 
simplifying the FAFSA in this way would remove obstacles and would make 
it easier for more low-income Americans to attend college and would 
increase the number of Pell grants each year.
  Last fall, Congress and the President took the first step in 
simplifying the FAFSA by allowing the Internal Revenue Service to 
answer 22 questions that applicants for grants and loans had already 
answered on their tax returns.
  There are 20 million American families who struggle to fill out this 
essential but unnecessarily complex form each year who will be grateful 
to Congress if we will complete the job of simplifying the Federal aid 
application system at the same time we will make it simpler for 43 
million Americans to pay back their student loans.
  There is one more piece of good news in this proposal, and this news 
is for the American taxpayer. Simplifying the student loan repayment 
system, as well as the system for applying for student grants and 
loans, will save taxpayers about $10 billion over 10 years, according 
to the Congressional Budget Office. This is because the simpler system 
will also provide more certainty in the repayment of loans.
  On October 1, 43 million Americans with student loans are going to 
have to restart making their monthly student loan repayments. Congress 
deferred student loan payments in March, as I said earlier, when the 
CARES Act--the COVID-19 relief bill--was signed into law, but that 
deferment expires on September 30. There has never been a more 
important time to end the maddening complexity of student loan 
repayment and make it simpler for Americans to pay off their student 
loans.
  Let me briefly review how the Student Loan Repayment and FAFSA 
Simplification Act will work. It offers student loan borrowers just two 
options: the standard 10-year repayment plan, just like a mortgage, or 
the income-based plan that I have described. For borrowers with no 
income, if they choose an income-based repayment plan, their monthly 
payments would be zero. If borrowers in an income-based repayment plan 
earn income, the borrowers' monthly payments would be based on the 
amounts of those incomes.
  Let's take an example. The average student loan for a 4-year college 
graduate today is about $30,000. So someone with $30,000 in student 
loan debt who makes $52,000 each year would be expected to pay 10 
percent of that borrower's discretionary income, which is about $274 
per month. So if you have a $30,000 loan debt and you make $52,000 a 
year, your monthly payment is going to be about $274 under this plan. 
Borrowers under the plan would never have to pay more than 10 percent 
of

[[Page S4334]]

their income that is not needed for necessities.
  If we don't pass this legislation before October 1, here is what will 
happen: Because of the confusing repayment system we have today, too 
many borrowers will end up in an unaffordable, standard 10-year 
repayment, mortgage-type plan and will have payments so high that they 
will find themselves in default. When we are through with this 
pandemic--when the economy improves and when these borrowers are ready 
to tackle their debts--they will find that their student loan debts may 
have soared out of control.
  I and Senator Murray of Washington State, who is the ranking Democrat 
on our committee, have been working on reauthorizing the Higher 
Education Act for nearly 6 years. We have held 19 hearings over that 
time. We are making good progress. In fact, I was hopeful we could mark 
up the bill this spring, but between impeachment and COVID, that just 
didn't work out.
  In January, I saw a consensus emerging. It was for simpler, effective 
regulations to make it easier for students to pay for college and to 
pay back their loans. We discussed the complexity of the Federal 
financial aid system. We heard from many experts. At one roundtable, 
the president of the University of Tennessee told me it took him months 
to figure out how to pay off his daughter's Federal student loan--this 
was from a college president--even with the money in his hand.
  So this is not a new problem, and the solution I am proposing has 
been discussed by our committee and many Senators outside the committee 
for nearly 6 years. It will help both those who face loan payments 
starting on October 1 and the millions of students who will be 
graduating with student debt.
  When it comes time to start repaying those loans, students will have 
to navigate through a complicated number of options today--nine in 
total. I don't want to go through them in detail because it would 
stagger the imagination. For example, there is the 10-year standard 
repayment. There is the graduated standard repayment. There are two 
extended repayment options. There are five different programs based on 
your income: the income-contingent repayment, the original income-based 
repayment, the revised income-based repayment, the pay-as-you-earn 
plan, and the revised pay-as-you-earn repayment. Those are all of the 
different ways you can pay off your student loans, which has confused 
the 43 million borrowers who have them.
  Now, if I lost you wandering through that, you can get a sense of how 
those 43 million borrowers must feel.
  The Student Loan Repayment and FAFSA Simplification Act ends that 
confusion. It will reduce those nine repayment plans down to two--one 
standard payment, like a mortgage, and one payment based on income.
  In addition, the bill reduces the complexity for borrowers who wish 
to participate in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which 
creates an incentive for borrowers to pursue jobs in public service.
  Today, not all of the nine current repayment plans are eligible for 
public loan forgiveness, and borrowers can have a hard time figuring 
out which plan to choose. Under this legislation, a borrower who wants 
loan forgiveness can't choose the wrong plan because there are only two 
and either applies, whether you choose the standard 10-year repayment 
plan or the income-based repayment plan.
  By the end of September, in less than 3 months, 43 million student 
loan borrowers will be required by law to begin monthly payments again 
on their loans. Many of these borrowers won't be able to afford these 
payments.
  I propose that we say to those borrowers: We have a better option for 
you. No income, no monthly payment--whether because of COVID-19 or for 
any other reason. In other words, if you have a student loan, you may 
defer your monthly payment if you do not have any income. When you do 
begin earning income, your monthly payment will never be more than 10 
percent of your income after you deduct the necessities of life, such 
as the cost of housing--rent or mortgage--and food.
  Now is the time to reduce the complexity of student loan debt and 
finish the job of simplifying the FAFSA and at the same time save the 
taxpayers money.
  I yield the floor.


                    Additional Cosponsors to S. 4220

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. McSALLY). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Casey, Udall, Shaheen, Kaine, Smith, Schumer, Feinstein, Cardin, 
Whitehouse, Leahy, Tester, Schatz, Cortez Masto, Warner, and Menendez 
be added as cosponsors to S. 4220, the Preventing Authoritarian 
Policing Tactics on America's Streets Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


         Additional Cosponsors to Amendment No. 2457 to S. 4049

  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Stabenow, Casey, Udall, Shaheen, Kaine, Smith, Schumer, Feinstein, 
Cardin, Whitehouse, Leahy, Tester, Schatz, Cortez Masto, Warner, and 
Menendez be added as cosponsors to Senate amendment 2457 to reform the 
Department of Defense to limit the use of Federal law enforcement 
officers for crowd control to S. 4049, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered


             Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 2457

  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, when, in the course of time, America 
should find a President in the Oval Office who chooses to bring the 
police tactics of dictators around the world to the streets of America, 
then that is the moment it is incumbent on every Member of this 
Chamber, who has sworn an oath to our Constitution, who is determined 
to practice civil rights of America, to stand up and say: Not now, not 
here, not ever, and we put an end to it.
  That is why I brought forth this amendment--the Stop Secret Policing 
in America amendment--and ask for it to be debated on this bill, 
because it involves police powers, military powers of the United States 
of America, and it is happening right now.
  What am I talking about? Well, let me give you some sense of what we 
have seen on the streets of America in the past few days--as I note 
here, authoritarian governments, not democratic republics, and unmarked 
authorities at the protests. Well, this is what we saw: Customs and 
Border Protection in military uniform, in combat camouflage, in the 
streets, no marking what the organization is and no unique identifier.
  The head of the CBP said: No, no. They had markings and unique 
identifiers. But here they are. And to make it even worse, they look a 
whole lot like protesters from the far right who come to make trouble, 
dressed in camouflage, and they actually have things that look more 
like badges than the actual representatives of Customs and Border 
Protection.
  What else did we see? Here is a Navy veteran standing in the street, 
who said he came down to the protest to simply say: Are you honoring 
your oath to the Constitution?
  Here we have CBP officers beating him. Here is one baton. Here is 
another. They broke one of his bones, while this man here is pepper-
sprayed in the face--a peaceful protester standing, being attacked by 
unmarked, war-prepared, dressed-in-camouflage forces deployed by the 
President of the United States.
  What else happened? Well, they decided to not consult with the city 
and not consult with the State and not think carefully about what 
weapons they were carrying and how they use them, so impact munitions.
  This protestor right here in the silhouette is standing, and he is 
holding what appears to be a sign above his head, or maybe it is a 
radio. Moments later in the video that shows this, he is shot down. You 
see him collapse on the street. A peaceful protestor, standing, making 
his case as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of 
America, and he is shot square between the eyes by President Trump's 
forces deployed without permission and no coordination with the local 
representatives or the Governor of the State of Oregon. This young man, 
struck down, shot in the head, in the hospital in critical condition. 
He is doing better now, thankfully.
  Then these forces deploy away from the Federal buildings and go into 
the

[[Page S4335]]

streets and start snatching protestors and throwing them into unmarked 
vans--vans like this one right here.
  One young man said: I was terrified. He said: I didn't know who these 
people were. They wouldn't identify themselves. There is a video of 
people saying: Who are you all? And they won't answer. They grab him. 
He thinks they might be those folks from the rightwing protesters who 
come in camouflage. He may be being kidnapped. He doesn't know. Even 
after he is thrown into a jail cell, it is not explained why they 
grabbed him off the street.
  Secret police--unmarked--patrolling streets, throwing people into 
unmarked vehicles, and sweeping them away--that is what you get from 
authoritarian dictators, not a country, a republic where we have a 
constitution and we have rights.
  That is what is going on here. That is what has to stop here in 
America.
  Some of the headlines: Federal law enforcement use unmarked vehicles 
to grab protesters off the streets. A Navy vet asked Federal officers 
in Portland to remember their oaths; they broke his hand.
  That is the Navy vet in the white sweatshirt who is being attacked, 
with two officers batoning him while another sprays him with pepper 
spray for standing in a peaceful protest.
  Federal officers deployed in Portland didn't have proper training, 
DHS says. Well, they shouldn't have been there.
  We need a bill to stop secret police in America. We need a bill done 
as an amendment on this bill right now, on this bill we are considering 
about military force, a bill that says that your organization has to be 
identified on a uniform; that says there has to be a unique identifier 
so you don't think you can just get away with anything and abuse people 
and never be held accountable; a bill that says that if you are there 
on a mission to defend monuments or buildings, you defend monuments or 
buildings; you don't go out through the streets--if you want to become 
crowd control in the streets and take over a city, you have to have the 
permission of the mayor or the permission of the Governor; and that the 
Federal Government, in transparency, in our democracy, has to tell us 
all, as participants, as this we-the-people government, that they are 
disclosing how many people, from where, are being sent to what city.
  This isn't just some small issue. This is the President saying 
yesterday--after bragging about what he has done in Portland to violate 
the rights of people--saying he is looking at New York and Chicago and 
Philadelphia and Detroit and Baltimore and Oakland--deploying these 
secret police tactics all over this country.
  All I do right now is stand here and say: I want a vote on ending 
these secret police practices in America. I say to every Republican 
colleague and every Democratic colleague: I want a vote, and I am here 
in full partnership with my colleague from Oregon who shares this 
indignation, this outrage over the violation of the Constitution, who 
will share those thoughts, and then we will, together, ask to have a 
vote.
  What is this Chamber if it cannot take on and hold a debate and a 
discussion over authoritarian, secret policing strategies brought to 
the streets of America?
  My colleague.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I thank my colleague this afternoon 
because he speaks today with passion and facts and clearly outlines 
what our constituents told us at home this past week, and I thank him 
for this partnership that Oregonians are seeing again on the floor of 
this great Senate.
  Madam President, Donald Trump has deployed a paramilitary squad to 
our hometown in Portland. His secret police are terrorizing my friends 
and neighbors. People across the country need to understand that 
yesterday Donald Trump announced to America that your friends and your 
neighbors are next.
  There are unmarked vans full of armed men in military gear snatching 
people off the streets. They take people away. They hold them. They 
interrogate them without justification and ultimately without charges.
  Over the weekend, a very close personal friend, Sharon Meieran, an ER 
doctor and a mom, was protesting peacefully and was tear-gassed without 
provocation. She felt like she was seeing democracy pass right in front 
of her eyes.
  Millions of Americans have seen the video of that local Navy veteran 
who was repeatedly beaten and pepper-sprayed and left with broken 
bones. People ask me: Ron, what was his offense?
  I am sure Senator Merkley gets exactly the same question: What did he 
do wrong?
  He was standing motionless, hands by his side, speaking up for the 
liberty that he served to protect. People are stunned that this is 
happening on the streets of our hometowns. We have seen reports of 
agents ripping a mask off of a protester who is obeying commands, with 
hands in the air, only to pepper spray the protester's face. The secret 
police even threw flash bombs and tear gas at a ``wall of moms.'' Here 
they are. Here they are in our hometown. You can see them, over the 
last couple of days: Moms and dads and now their kids are going to 
peacefully sing songs and protest for justice.

  Oregonians are just standing up for what is right. Only the cowards 
of the Trump administration would try to convince America that these 
peaceful protesters, the ``wall of moms,'' represent some kind of 
anarchist threat. It is nonsense.
  I condemn violence by anybody--always--and I spent much of last week 
working for nonviolent solutions in my hometown and fresh approaches to 
reduce tensions on our streets. The fact is, the protests in Portland 
have been overwhelmingly peaceful. Crime in Portland and across Oregon 
was down before Donald Trump sent in his secret police.
  Donald Trump did not send that paramilitary force to keep people 
safe. Donald Trump is doing it to create an image of chaos, to air it 
on far-right television, scare the country, turn them into campaign 
ads, but these are the people Senator Merkley and I are honored to 
represent. These are the people Donald Trump's paramilitary forces 
attacked and terrorized. He calls it a ``great success.'' As we have 
indicated, he has a game plan to basically make Portland an experiment 
and to do it in other cities, especially, by his accounts, those with 
Democratic leadership and voters.
  This kind of abusive exercise of power by a rogue President would 
have horrified our Founding Fathers. They wrote a wonderful 
Constitution to prevent exactly this behavior because democracy cannot 
survive in a nation that tolerates it. These tactics were used 
throughout the world a century ago to turn elected politicians into 
tyrants.
  The President's first and most important job is to keep Americans 
safe. Residents of Portland are less safe and less secure since Donald 
Trump deployed the secret police to our streets. The same thing--and I 
say this to colleagues wherever you are from--the same things will 
happen in your communities where Donald Trump will send his 
paramilitary forces.
  Frankly, when Donald Trump always talks about targeting Portland and 
other cities, I say to Senator Merkley, I wish he would target the 
coronavirus. I wish he would put a fraction of his passion for going 
after our cities into dealing with the coronavirus because while Donald 
Trump's secret police are out terrorizing Portland's moms and doctors 
and other peaceful protesters, we face a raging pandemic and record-
high unemployment.
  I want us to renew the supercharged unemployment benefits that people 
are going to lose this weekend. Donald Trump isn't doing any of that 
work. What he is doing is making Americans in cities less safe and not 
dealing with the coronavirus on top of it. He is attempting to cut 
resources for COVID testing and treatment. His administration is 
covering up data that the public health professionals rely on to do 
their job. He does it repeatedly, anxious to cut the lifelines of 30 
million jobless Americans, sending them tumbling off an economic cliff 
right in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great 
Depression.
  He is not doing his job. He is ignoring his responsibilities. Both on 
the streets of Portland and in Washington, DC, when he walks away from 
dealing with the coronavirus, he isn't keeping Americans safe. He is 
putting them in more danger.

[[Page S4336]]

  As I have said repeatedly, Donald Trump ought to attack the 
coronavirus pandemic and not the people of Portland. So that is why, 
very shortly, Senator Merkley and I will offer an amendment that will 
block Donald Trump from using these paramilitary forces in Portland or 
other cities where they are unwanted.
  What we are seeing in our hometowns is these paramilitary squads 
brutally unleashed against peaceful protesters--moms and veterans, 
doctors and activists. All they want to do is speak out for liberty and 
justice.
  What Donald Trump is now doing is incompatible with the fundamental 
principles of democracy laid out by our Founders and expanded 
throughout the generations. I believe what Donald Trump is doing, in 
light of his statement yesterday, to America, that he is going to go 
after one city after another, is totally out of control. The Senate 
cannot allow this to happen. That is why Senator Merkley and I are 
calling for the Senate to act.
  I thank my friend and colleague for his leadership. He has made it 
clear that 100 percent of Oregon's U.S. Senators are going to keep 
pushing and fighting until this changes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. The support is felt strongly throughout Oregon to stop 
the secret police in America, but it is a coast-to-coast feeling, and I 
yield to my colleague from Connecticut to speak for the other side of 
the country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I want to thank from my heart our 
two colleagues from Oregon who are standing up and championing not just 
their hometowns, not just the constituents of their State, but they are 
speaking for every hometown and every citizen of our country from every 
party, from every corner of our great Nation.
  Let me just say very simply, these pictures of heavily armed, 
unidentified individuals in camouflage fatigues driving unmarked 
vehicles, grabbing individuals and throwing them into their car, would 
be something we would associate with the worst nightmare of a two-bit 
dictatorship. Here we see it in the United States of America.
  I spent almost my whole career in law enforcement before I came to 
this body, and I am embarrassed and ashamed that this kind of sadistic, 
cruel, hate-filled coup was done in the name of law enforcement. What 
we witnessed in Oregon was in no way law enforcement. It was a 
violation of the law and of individual rights, and it is coming to your 
hometown as well. The President has specifically named Chicago, 
Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore, and Oakland. It will come to Hartford 
and my hometown Stanford and other cities in Connecticut. Have no fear, 
if the President will go to these abusive extremes on the other coast 
of America, he will come to the east coast as well.
  Let me just state the requirements of this amendment: identification 
of each officer, limiting Federal agents to their proper role in 
protecting Federal property, transparency and deployment of these 
officers, identification of them, and accountability are basic tenets 
of law enforcement.
  We should not have to address this issue on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate, and we are doing it only because the President has broken the 
norms. He has disrespected the law. Every Senator in this body, 
regardless of party, should be standing up and speaking out in support 
of this amendment. I thank my colleague for speaking our truth to 
power.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. On behalf of two Oregon Senators and my colleague from 
Connecticut and the 34 other Senators who are standing up for 
democracy, rights, and against secret police, I ask unanimous consent 
to call up amendment No. 2457, an amendment to limit Federal law 
enforcement officers for crowd control; that there be 2 hours for 
debate, equally divided between opponents and proponents; that upon 
disposition of the Tester amendment, the Senate vote in relation to the 
amendment, with no amendments in order prior to the vote and with all 
other provisions under the previous order remaining in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Well, first of all, I don't know how long I have sat and 
listened to this--a long time--probably not as long as it seems. 
``Secret police, sadistic, cruel.'' I am beginning to come to the 
conclusion that they are not going to be supporting Donald Trump for 
reelection.
  I rise to object to my colleagues' request for unanimous consent. 
This body has worked together to carefully consider each and every one 
of the 739 amendments filed on the NDAA. It never happened before. We 
adopted those amendments that have broad-based, bipartisan support. The 
majority and minority have worked together to determine which 
amendments would be brought up for a vote. Senator Merkley's request 
for a UC circumvents that process.
  Further, this morning, the Senate adopted my commonsense amendment 
that will ensure that law enforcement has the right equipment and the 
right training. Senator Merkley's amendment flies in the face of that 
responsible approach.
  His amendment would hamstring Federal and civilian law enforcement 
and our military, even when operating in a title 32 status under the 
control of the State government. This would hinder their ability to 
keep our communities safe. For these reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I say to my colleague from Oklahoma, that if these 
secret police were released on the streets of Tulsa, you would be down 
here defending your constituents, but you have a responsibility to 
defend all constituents across the country, the rights of all citizens 
in the United States of America.
  I am not asking you to support my bill. I am not asking you to make 
the argument for it. I am asking for the simple courtesy that this 
Chamber do the job it is vested with under the Constitution, which is 
to take up serious issues that arise in America, hold a dialogue about 
them on this floor, and take a vote to show the American people where 
we stand in the hopes to solve the problem.
  I have no doubt that I wouldn't get 100 votes. You raise some 
interesting points. You note that my request to debate a very serious 
issue in America circumvents process. I can state that for 200 years 
this Chamber believed it was here to address serious issues, and they 
didn't raise process issues to keep serious issues from being 
debated. You didn't need unanimous consent. Just a few decades ago, I 
was here watching this Chamber working the Tax Reform Act and watching 
each amendment completed, and as soon as it was done, the next Senator 
asked for the recognition of the Chair. In fact, normally there would 
be about 10 Senators saying--and it was always ``Mr. President.'' Now 
it is often ``Madam President.'' But they were getting attention 
because the next person who spoke got the next amendment.

  This system has taken away the fundamental responsibility of Senators 
to be able to introduce important issues in America, have them debated, 
and voted on. My colleague says: Well, we have a new process where the 
majority leader and the ranking member of the committee consult and 
decide what should be considered. That concentration of power is 
totally at odds with the vision of this Chamber developed by our 
Founders.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MERKLEY. I will not yield until I am done. That was one of his 
arguments; that it circumvents process.
  The second is, he said it takes equipment away and training away, and 
yet my bill doesn't deal with equipment or training. So, clearly, that 
argument doesn't stand.
  Then he noted title 32 status under the control of the Governor, but 
this bill says an expanded role of crowd control occurs under the 
permission of the Governor, not without it.
  So this is why these issues should be debated on this floor. I call 
on all my

[[Page S4337]]

colleagues to return the Senate to a place where serious and important 
issues regarding the rights of Americans can be considered and not 
shoved aside because one Member doesn't want them addressed. That is a 
challenge for this Chamber, but we have a bigger challenge, which is 
how do we defend the rights of our citizens if we can't put an 
amendment on the floor and have it debated and voted on?
  So, to all my colleagues who believe the secret police have no role 
in America; that unidentified officers, delegated without proper 
training, without consultation, without coordination, who are beating 
up peaceful protesters have no place in America; that they are being 
thrown into a van, and you don't even know what that van is or who 
those people are has no place in America; that the tactics of Duterte 
in the Philippines and Putin in Russia and Erdogan in Turkey have no 
place in America; who believe in a ``we the people'' government; those 
colleagues I thank, and let's bring this issue to the floor and have 
the debate and have the vote.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Additional Cosponsors--Amendment No. 2457

  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Rosen and Hassan be added as cosponsors to Senate amendment No. 2457, 
to reform Department of Defense to limit the use of Federal law 
enforcement officers for crowd control, and to S. 4049, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. My apologies to my colleague from Wyoming. I think we 
are not in quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. You are not.


                     Additional Cosponsors--S. 4220

  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Rosen and Hassan be added as cosponsors to S. 4220, the Preventing 
Authoritarian Policing Tactics on America's Streets Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                            Economic Growth

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss 
our economic recovery. Let me be clear. Our economy will not shut down 
again. Government will not forcibly close businesses for a second time.
  Yes, America is coming back from the coronavirus. The prepandemic 
economy was strong; it was healthy; and it was growing. Every part of 
the economy had record job growth. Unemployment was at a 50-year low. 
Shutting down the economy slowed the spread of the virus, but it did 
not eliminate it. It saved lives, and it bought us time.
  Reopening was never conditioned on having a vaccine, nor was it 
conditioned on eliminating the virus entirely. Businesses, large and 
small, are today continuing to reopen, and they are opening in a safe, 
scientific, and sensible way. I saw it all across Wyoming the last 2 
weeks as I traveled the State
  In Casper and Cheyenne, Main Street is busy again. Mom-and-pop 
businesses are bringing back workers. Cody was full of activity over 
the Fourth of July. Yellowstone is welcoming thousands of visitors, and 
people are heading to all of the activities in Thermopolis. The rodeos 
have been a huge success. Wyoming is literally back in the saddle 
again.
  Businesses all over the country are bouncing back and bringing back 
workers. In June, the economy added nearly 5 million jobs. It shattered 
all forecasts. This was by far the largest ever monthly jobs gain in 
U.S. history. More than 7 million people have been hired back in the 
last 2 months. May and June job creation set records.
  The recent rise in new COVID-19 cases, to me, as a doctor, is 
troubling. Still, it is no reason to stop reopening, as long as we open 
in a responsible way.
  Now, people have made great sacrifices. We all did what the experts 
said we needed to do. Now Americans are ready to get back to business 
and get back to work. People don't want another shutdown, and you know 
that. You have seen that in your own home State, and they most 
assuredly don't want laws coming out of Congress that make it easier to 
stay closed and harder to reopen. As a doctor, I know we can flatten 
the virus curve without flattening or flatlining the economy. People 
can resume normal life and stay healthy.
  The key, of course, is for all of us to do our part and take the 
proper precautions, and we know what they are: Social distancing, good 
hygiene, and, of course, wearing masks. As a doctor, I know masks help 
lower the infection spread, especially indoors when we can't socially 
distance. Together, we can manage the risk, and, as a nation, we can 
move forward.
  Millions of Americans are returning to work and doing it safely. 
Congress's rapid response to the pandemic back in March set this 
recovery in motion. Medical workers now have better tools for virus 
testing, for treating the disease, and for developing a vaccine. 
Americans are doing everything they can to protect the most vulnerable. 
We are taking care of seniors and people with chronic medical 
conditions. The country is conducting a record number of tests. More 
than 45 million people have been tested. I think the number is now 
close to 50 million. There are well over 700,000 tests each day.
  Widespread testing allows us to pinpoint virus hotspots so we are 
able to surge aid where it is most needed. Hospitals now have more 
effective COVID-19 treatments. I talked to doctors around the State of 
Wyoming and around the country. We are seeing incredible progress in 
vaccine trials. A successful vaccine is vital to beating the virus.
  Now, it is key to the economic comeback as well. Scientists hope to 
have a vaccine ready in record time--actually, before the end of this 
calendar year. All this progress has given businesses the confidence to 
reopen and to put people back to work. A solid majority of Americans 
now will tell you that they see their finances as being stable.
  Consumer spending the last 2 months has been way up. Manufacturing 
has started to take off again. Simply put, the pro-health, pro-jobs 
policies that this Senate has put in place, those policies are working. 
We are only getting started.
  Now Congress must build on the CARES Act successes. The next bill, 
the one that we are working on now, cannot be a bloated bailout 
bonanza. We will not pass Speaker Pelosi's bill from Handout Heaven. 
No, the next aid measure must be focused. It must be focused on 
healthcare and safety and schools and jobs.
  Here is my three-part test for the next pandemic package. Will it 
save lives? Will it save lives with testing, treatment, and vaccines? I 
am very optimistic of what I have seen about the research with the new 
vaccine. Will it protect our medical community and small businesses and 
schools from frivolous lawsuits? There are 3,500 that have already been 
filed across the country by sue-and-settle lawyers focused on 
coronavirus. And will it get people back to work and children back to 
school safely?
  We must help schools reopen in a safe way. Children need to get back 
to school. It is essential for their well-being. That is why the 
Nation's pediatricians--the American Academy of Pediatrics--is urging 
schools to reopen, and they say with the children physically present--
with the children physically present. Remote learning, we know, for 
very young people, has not worked. Children cannot lose another year of 
school. To lose a full year of school for these young people would be 
devastating. It would be a learning loss, as well as a loss of the 
ability to learn and making it that much harder to pick up further down 
the line. And if kids aren't in school, many parents can't go back to 
work. Most people with their jobs cannot work from home.
  So I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my Democratic 
colleagues, to join us, to join our effort to

[[Page S4338]]

reopen our economy and reopen our schools.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                S. 4049

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam President, I am proud to talk about the 
National Defense Authorization Act, which has come to this body with a 
strong bipartisan vote from the Armed Services Committee where I serve. 
I am proud to have helped to craft this legislation, and I am proud to 
be voting for some of the amendments that have been permitted votes on 
the floor.
  One that has not been permitted relates to the Insurrection Act, a 
213-year-old law that has been invoked at various points in our history 
to protect civil rights as it was during the era of desegregation, but 
President Trump has threatened to use this slavery-era law to silence 
calls for justice from Americans protesting centuries of racist 
oppression.
  In effect, he has threatened to invert the Insurrection Act to 
deprive Americans of their First Amendment right. So I introduced a 
bill called the CIVIL Act that would preserve Presidential 
accountability to Congress whenever the Insurrection Act is invoked. It 
would require the President to consult with Congress prior to invoking 
the act and provide certification to Congress to justify the use of 
this authority. It has other provisions.
  It was voted down in the markup of the Armed Services Committee, but 
I sought a vote on the floor. Apparently, it will not happen.
  If the President uses force against Americans at home, Congress 
should demand at least the same check that applied to his use of force 
against adversaries abroad.
  I offered this act as an amendment, and I am grateful to all my 
Democratic colleagues on the committee for supporting it. I am also 
grateful to the House of Representatives, which, just yesterday, passed 
an NDAA amendment to its bill modifying the CIVIL Act, which I 
introduced. It is called the Curtailing Insurrection Act Violations of 
Individuals' Liberties. I would like to thank my colleagues on the 
House side who supported this amendment, particularly Congresswoman 
Escobar, who led the charge in the House Armed Services Committee and 
on the House floor.
  I urge our colleagues, whether it is now in the course of considering 
the NDAA or at some point in the future, to hold the President, any 
President--we are talking not only about this President but any 
President--accountable when he uses military force against Americans. 
When the American military and troops of our country are used against 
Americans, there ought to be at least the same accountability as when 
American troops are used abroad, with the same kind of checks--maybe 
not identical, but the same kinds of checks--because the President 
using troops against our own citizens denies, potentially, fundamental 
freedoms, and the need for accountability is even more urgent. Our 
military should defend liberties, not endanger them, misdirected by a 
misguided President.
  Despite my disappointment in the Senate's lack of action to curtail 
the President's unaccountable use and abuse of military power, I am 
proud of a number of provisions that I also authored in this bill that 
invest in our most valuable military asset, our servicemembers and 
their families.
  I am grateful to all of the military spouses and advocates from 
across the country who shared their challenges with me and my office. 
Their stories, their voice, and their faces made an immensely impactful 
difference. We used their experience to craft these overdue policies.
  I want to say to those families--to the spouses and loved ones--that 
they serve as much as the men and women they support in uniform.
  The NDAA includes important provisions that I championed to hold 
commanders accountable to military families, make childcare more 
affordable, expand support for military moms, and prevent mental health 
discrimination. These measures are profoundly important.
  Provisions I authored with Senator Kaine will make childcare more 
affordable by authorizing hardship waivers, requiring fee reductions 
for families with more than one child. And the NDAA will support those 
military moms by extending TRICARE to include other kinds of services.
  The Connecticut military industrial base will benefit from the 
increased expenditure and the robust investment in two Virginia-class 
submarines. My priority during the negotiations on the conference 
committee will be to advance this cause.
  These provisions for expanding our production of submarines and other 
military platforms must also focus on our supply base, on the workforce 
that keeps us safe, and on men and women who comprise, indeed, the most 
talented workforce, using and building unmatched military technology to 
keep our countries secure.
  We should keep in mind the families of our military and continue 
fighting for even more provisions that enable them to continue their 
great work, but these military platforms assure that our troops will 
never have a fair fight--that they will always be superior, no matter 
what the terrain or arena or the fight.
  I am pleased that the NDAA makes robust investments in Connecticut's 
industrial base. I will make as my top priority during negotiations of 
the conference committee to restore full funding for two submarines, 
even beyond the commitment in this NDAA, to a second Virginia-class 
submarine in this budget authorization.
  I was pleased, again, to see action by the House, which provides for 
two fully funded Virginia-class submarines in the House Armed Services 
Committee version of the NDAA.
  In addition to fully funding the first Columbia-class submarine--a 
historic milestone for this program--the Senate version added an 
additional $175 million for Columbia-class supplier development. The 
heroes in this story are not only the big contractors. They are the 
supply chains--not only the companies with hundreds of employees but 
the components makers and the parts manufacturers that may make tiny 
pieces of the submarine by comparison to its massive length. They are 
all heroes of our defense industrial production.

  People are the foundation of the submarine industrial base, and this 
bill authorizes an additional $20 million in workforce development 
funding. I will seek to expand the supplier development program, which 
provides the kind of support that the supply chain needs.
  We must ensure that the final bill preserves not only the necessary 
levels of funding for the Virginia-class and the Columbia-class 
submarines but also for continued growth of our fifth generation 
fighter fleet. It is a key component of our national defense. The 
Senate version of the NDAA authorizes the growth of the F-35 fleet by 
93 aircraft, including 14 aircraft above the President's budget 
request.
  I remain a staunch advocate of the CH-53K program. I was happy to see 
the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee fund nine CH-53K 
helicopters. I am going to work to ensure that the final NDAA also 
authorizes nine helicopters.
  I want to congratulate and thank Sikorsky, Pratt & Whitney, Raytheon 
Technologies, and, again, the many suppliers throughout Connecticut 
that contribute to an aerospace program second to none in the world.
  Finally, let me talk a little bit about the Fair Care for Vietnam 
Veterans Act of 2020. Later this week, we will vote on an amendment to 
the NDAA based on a bicameral Fair Care for Veterans Act of 2020.
  In March, I, along with Senator Tester and 30 Senate colleagues, 
introduced this legislation to require the VA to provide benefits for 
veterans suffering from bladder cancer, hypothyroidism, Parkinsonism, 
and hypertension.
  The National Academy recognizes that these illnesses have an 
association with herbicide exposure. It reached that conclusion in 
2016. Since then, I have been fighting, along with many of my 
colleagues, to get the VA to include these four conditions as 
presumptive conditions linked to Agent Orange,

[[Page S4339]]

only to have this administration's officials block us at every turn.
  Despite the scientific proof--the incontrovertible science that these 
conditions are linked to Agent Orange--and despite more than 83,000 
veterans who suffer from these conditions, the Trump administration's 
VA resisted and refused to acknowledge the connection.
  I look forward to voting to add bladder cancer, hypothyroidism, and 
Parkinsonism to the list of Agent Orange presumptives. One condition in 
our bill, hypertension, was not included in this NDAA amendment, but I 
am committed to adding it during conference. It is supported by the 
science as a condition linked to Agent Orange.
  The Trump administration says it doesn't want to spend the money to 
cover the four conditions in this bill, but when we send people to war, 
we make a commitment. We make a commitment, and we accept an obligation 
to treat them, no matter what the cost, no matter what the cause of 
their service-related injuries are when the science and the facts 
support it. Facts are stubborn things, as many have said. To the 
veterans in Connecticut and nationwide, I will never stop fighting to 
get good healthcare for our veterans. I know this issue is bipartisan 
in its support.
  I look forward to voting in favor of the fiscal year 2021 NDAA, but I 
also think our colleagues must recognize that military spending alone 
does not guarantee our national security. These weapons platforms and 
the hardware that we produce does not constitute, alone, our national 
defense. It is the quality of our people, whether they are in the 
supply chain or the defense establishment or our troops on the ground 
or in the air or at sea. To recruit and train the best possible 
military, we need to have a strong nonmilitary infrastructure. 
Education, healthcare, housing--our national defense includes those 
essential components.
  So I believe that we must scrutinize this budget with a view to 
reducing any expenditures that are unnecessary.
  I will state as a matter of principle that when we vote on this NDAA, 
I will be supportive of amendments that might potentially achieve more 
equity and effectiveness in the way we make commitments in support of 
our national defense. We must interpret as broadly as is necessary how 
that defense must be supported.
  It is not alone the money in this NDAA; it is also what we commit to 
racial justice in this country; the quality of our policing and our 
education, which should not depend on a young person's ZIP Code; the 
quality of our healthcare, which right now has racial disparities that 
are inexcusable; housing that often results from redlining; and 
protections in the workplace, which could be achieved by a fairer, more 
effective use of OSHA.
  The quality of our society and our projection of power abroad depend 
on our quality of life and the quality of services that we provide on 
education, healthcare, housing, and all of the other infrastructure, 
including transportation. We need to consider those factors and do what 
is necessary to assure that our warfighters and our military never have 
a fair fight, that they always predominate on the battlefield. We must 
protect our veterans to whom we make the commitment that we will always 
have their backs when they come home.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________