[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 22, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4365-S4397]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

    NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 4049, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 4049) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2021 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Inhofe amendment No. 2301, in the nature of a substitute.
       McConnell (for Portman) amendment No. 2080 (to amendment 
     No. 2301), to require an element in annual reports on cyber 
     science and technology activities on work with academic 
     consortia on high priority cybersecurity research activities 
     in Department of Defense capabilities.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, Democrat Senators returned to 
Washington on Monday prepared to work in a bipartisan way on the next 
phase of coronavirus relief.
  After stalling for months while COVID-19 surged in more than 40 
States, Senate Republicans finally said that now--the end of July, more 
than 3 months after the CARES Act passed--would be the time for another 
emergency bill. But here we are. It is in the middle of the week, and 
the Republican Party is so disorganized, chaotic, and unprepared that 
they can barely cobble together a partisan bill in their own 
conference.
  Indicative was Leader McConnell's speech. He rants and raves about 
the New York Times and cancel culture, but there is not a word about 
COVID. People are ready to lose their unemployment benefits, to lose 
their apartments and be evicted. Local governments are laying off 
people because they don't have the dollars. We are in a national 
crisis.
  We don't hear a word out of Leader McConnell as we are on the edge of 
so many cliffs. Instead, there is lots of talk about the New York Times 
and cancel culture. That may be fodder for the far right. That is not 
what America needs.
  When Leader McConnell, at this crucial moment, can't even mention 
COVID-19, it shows what a knot the Republicans are tied in. The bottom 
line is this: The White House Chief of Staff said Republicans ``were on 
their own 20 yard line'' when it comes to their legislative proposal--
their own 20-yard line, 2 months and a week after we passed the COVID 3 
bill, after millions more Americans applied for unemployment, after 
many small businesses went under, and many more died and were 
hospitalized as COVID-19 rages in many Southern States. We are still on 
the 20-yard line? Where have the Republicans been?
  I have never seen a political party in the middle of a crisis so tied 
in a knot that the majority leader can't even mention it in his speech 
and spends time ranting against favorite targets of the far right and 
can't come up with a proposal.
  This is not a game. This isn't typical Republican dysfunction about 
whether or not they did or didn't see the President's last tweet. The 
disarray on the Republican side has real consequences. Americans will 
suffer unnecessary pain and uncertainty because of it.
  The only reason there hasn't been another relief package in Congress 
already is due to this Republican incompetence and reckless delay. Even 
after all of these months, the White House and Senate Republicans are 
starkly divided about what to do. The White House is insisting on 
policies, like a payroll tax cut, that would do nothing to help 
millions of unemployed Americans and that many Senate Republicans don't 
even support. The Republicans can't even seem to agree on whether to 
provide any new aid for State and local governments or if the States 
should be able to more flexibly use the support we have already given.
  A few of my friends on the other side of the aisle hardly want to 
spend any more money to help our country in this once-in-a-generation 
crisis because it might add to the national debt. Giant corporate tax 
cuts--$1.5 trillion to $2 trillion of them--are OK, but fighting the 
greatest public health crisis in a century and forestalling a 
depression is a bridge too far? Where are the priorities on the other 
side of the aisle? I guess they are for helping big corporate fat 
cats--wealthy people--but not average people who are hurting. That is 
the trouble with the Republican Party.
  Seriously, there are only 3 weeks left until the August work period, 
and the Republicans are still in the opening phases of preparing their 
bill. We don't have time for this mess that the Republicans are in. The 
moratorium on evictions that we passed in the CARES Act expires in 2 
days. The Wall Street Journal reports that nearly 12 million adults 
live in households that missed their last rent payments and that 23 
million have little or no confidence in their ability to make the next 
ones.
  Next week, the enhanced unemployment benefits we passed in the CARES 
Act will expire while 20 to 30 million Americans will still be without 
work. A recent study showed that those enhanced benefits prevented 
nearly 12 million Americans from slipping into poverty--12 million. 
Yet, because the Republicans can't get their act together, those 
benefits might expire next week.
  Congress needs to act quickly. The Senate Republicans and the White 
House need to get on the same page, produce a proposal--not just drop 
it on the floor but start negotiations. Better yet, we could start 
negotiations on the Heroes Act, which already passed the House, and, 
unlike the developing Republican proposal, it would actually match the 
scale of this crisis.
  Speaker Pelosi and I met yesterday with Chief of Staff Meadows and 
Secretary Mnuchin. Even with all of this chaos, we have had some 
indications about what the Republicans are trying to do in their bill. 
Over the weekend, we heard that the administration was trying to block 
additional funding for coronavirus testing and contact tracing. 
President Trump has also ended the CDC's data collection efforts, 
potentially risking access to data that public health experts so 
vitally need. So, when we met with Chief of Staff Meadows and Secretary 
Mnuchin, Speaker Pelosi and I told them to back off these 
counterproductive and dangerous ideas.
  In addition, we will be sending a letter to the administration to 
demand answers on how data is being reported to the White House, as 
well as pushing for legislation in the upcoming bill to ensure that 
COVID-19 data is fully transparent and accessible without there being 
any interference from the administration.
  We know Donald Trump likes to hide the truth. He thinks, when the 
truth doesn't come forward and when he muzzles government officials, 
that it changes things. It doesn't. The virus still rages and will rage 
unless we do something about it, not simply hide the statistics that 
show his depth in mendacity. We will make sure that those statistics 
are made public so all of America, including the President, will know 
how bad the situation is, because that is what we need--the truth to 
set us free and then to act on it. Let me repeat: If the administration 
refuses to reverse course, the Democrats will insist on data 
transparency in the next COVID relief bill.

[[Page S4366]]

  All of our efforts to bolster the economy, help the unemployed, save 
small businesses, and ensure our children are safe at school will be 
meaningless if we don't stop the spread of the virus. Hiding COVID data 
from the CDC, as well as foot-dragging on more testing and tracing, is 
absolutely incomprehensible and imperils everything else we are working 
on. So we need to make a law, and we need to make it soon. Right now, 
the infighting and partisanship on the Republican side and cockamamie 
ideas, like hiding data from the CDC, are only adding to the delay.
  We also saw the return of President Trump's coronavirus press 
briefings yesterday. It is remarkable that President Trump has lowered 
the bar so much that his performance yesterday was seen as a change in 
tone. It is a very sad state of affairs in our country when one day of 
the President's reading statistics is hailed as leadership when that is 
what he should have been doing all along. The mere acknowledgment by 
the President that COVID-19 is raging through our country is some kind 
of breakthrough. Is that what people believe? Is that what Trump wants 
the people to believe? It is crazy.
  The truth is, every time the President takes the podium, he is a risk 
to public health. We are 6 months into the coronavirus, and the 
President has only just come around to the idea that wearing masks 
would be a good idea. He deserves criticism for that belated admission, 
not praise. We are 6 months into the crisis, and the President said 
yesterday that his administration is in the process of developing a 
strategy that is going to be very, very powerful--6 months in. 
Countries in Europe and East Asia developed national testing regimens 
ages ago. That is why they are way ahead of us in fighting this crisis.
  Americans must be hanging their heads in shame and disbelief that 
this administration is still trying to sort out the basics. Then, when 
he says he is going to try and sort out the basics months and months 
too late, as the crisis has raged, people think he should get praise? 
No, he should be criticized because he hasn't done what he was supposed 
to have been doing for months.
  President Trump started his press conference by labeling COVID-19 the 
``China virus,'' which shows the President is still trying to deflect 
blame and play political games with this deadly, serious virus--games 
that are divisive. The truth is, more than anything or anybody else, 
the responsibility for America's failure to deal competently with 
COVID-19 falls squarely on President Trump's shoulders. It is long past 
time for the President to start acting like it
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I read this morning that more Americans 
have died in the last 3 months than in any 3-month period in the 
history of the United States. That is a stunning statistic. We are 
searching the records to make sure that it is an accurate statement, 
and I am afraid it is.
  So far, we believe 140,000 Americans have died of this COVID-19 
crisis that we are facing. This is not a moment of American greatness. 
They have just done a review of the nations across the world and the 
safety of living in those nations that face this pandemic. Where does 
the United States rank among the nations of the world in terms of 
safety in dealing with the coronavirus? It ranks 58th--two ranks ahead 
of Russia.
  How could we have reached this moment in time when this pandemic has 
been so devastating in the United States, more so than in many other 
countries around the world--countries that are supposedly not even 
close to us in terms of economic development and strength? They have 
handled this far better than the United States. Yet what are we doing 
about it now? It is a valid question.
  I know that the President has decided he doesn't want the likes of 
Dr. Tony Fauci by his side any longer when it comes to talking about 
this pandemic, but Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins, of the National 
Institutes of Health, were interviewed over the weekend and were asked 
directly about the issue of testing.
  Why does it take so long in the United States to get results, and 
what kind of problems does that create?
  Well, we know. If people suspect they are positive for this virus and 
go in for a test, they are worried that they may be endangering their 
own lives, not to mention the lives of others. Then, they have to wait 
1 day, 2 days, 3 days, 6 days--more--for the test results. That is 
unacceptable. We need to invest more money in testing and more money in 
finding tests to provide quicker results.
  You would think that it would be obvious to everyone, but it is not 
obvious in this negotiation that is taking place now in the U.S. 
Senate. There are Republican Senators who are resisting the idea of 
putting more money into testing in the United States. What country do 
they live in? Do they ever go home from Washington to see what is 
happening in the rest of this country? We closed down the testing 
facilities in my hometown of Springfield, IL, this last week. It was 
disappointing, for we needed it, and we need more.
  If we are serious about opening this economy, if we are serious about 
stopping the spread of this pandemic, and if we are serious about 
opening our schools and making certain that teachers and pupils are 
safe, we need more testing. Yet here we are, tied in knots, as Senator 
Schumer said earlier.
  The Republicans can't agree among themselves about the issue of 
putting money into testing in the midst of this pandemic. It is hard to 
believe. It was more than 2 months ago that the House of 
Representatives passed the Heroes Act. Senator McConnell has come to 
the floor regularly to ridicule that effort because he doesn't like the 
provisions in the act. It is his right to have a difference of opinion, 
but the obvious questions to Senator McConnell are these: Where is your 
alternative? What have you been doing for the last 2 months? You should 
have been writing a bill that we should be voting on as soon as we 
finish the one that is pending on the floor.
  Apparently, the White House and the Senate Republicans can't come to 
any agreement about how to move forward. There are some who are 
basically saying: Enough. We are not going to spend another penny. We 
are not going to waste any more money on any type of COVID-19.
  I have seen their testimony. I have seen their statements before the 
microphones. That is hard to imagine.
  I wonder if some of the Senators from States like Kentucky and Texas 
who have stepped up and said, ``We have spent enough money on this,'' 
have been home recently. Have they been there to meet people who are 
unemployed, out of work, or who have been laid off who are receiving 
the Federal unemployment benefits to keep bread on the table and to pay 
for the their mortgages and their health insurance?
  This $600 a week may sound like a pretty generous amount of money to 
some. Try living on it. Try living on $600 a week when it costs you 
$400 a week for health insurance. Yes, that is the average on COBRA 
premiums--almost $1,700 a month. So, when you talk about $600 a week, 
take out $1,600 or $1,700 off the top of that, and tell me what is left 
to take care of your family.
  As for the last Federal unemployment payment under the CARES Act, 
Senator Schumer is right. It ends on July 31--a week from Saturday. We 
have been told that the last checks will be mailed this Saturday, which 
is just a few days from now.
  Three days from now, the last check goes out. While that check is 
making its way through the mail, is it even possible that the 
Republican leadership, with the White House, will come up with a 
proposal to deal with this? It has been 2 months. Senator McConnell 
said, during those 2 months, that he didn't feel any sense of urgency--
no sense of urgency. Can you imagine the sense of urgency if you can't 
make your mortgage payment? Can you imagine the sense of urgency if 
that utility bill is so large you can't pay it? That is the reality 
facing a lot of families who have been laid off and are unemployed. I 
believe--and many agree--that one of our highest priorities is to make 
sure that the resources are there for the families.
  I also want to say that we are in the midst of this conversation 
about public health while the President and his party are trying to 
kill the Affordable Care Act in the Supreme Court. More

[[Page S4367]]

than 140,000 Americans have died from this pandemic, and President 
Trump and the Republican Party are trying to kill the major source of 
health insurance for millions of Americans. For 10 years, the 
Affordable Care Act has been the law of the land, and before it was the 
law of the land, there were some things going on when it came to health 
insurance which we should not forget.
  Routinely, health insurance companies discriminated against women 
before we passed the Affordable Care Act and prohibited their 
practices. There was a time when insurance companies were allowed to 
charge women more than men for the same health insurance policies. It 
was common for women to pay three or four times what men pay for on the 
identical plans.
  Important women's healthcare was often excluded from most insurance 
plans. For instance, most individual policies refused to cover 
maternity or newborn care.
  Insurance companies were allowed to deny coverage and charge higher 
premiums to Americans with preexisting conditions. That particular 
discrimination hurt women much more than men. Approximately 24 million 
American men have preexisting conditions; 30 million American women.
  Insurance companies could consider a host of medical conditions to be 
preexisting conditions: breast cancer, C-sections, victims of domestic 
violence, asthma, acne, heart disease--all preexisting conditions. 
Before the Affordable Care Act, that is what the health insurance 
companies pointed to when they charged women and others more because of 
it.
  The Affordable Care Act put an end to that, and now the Republicans 
want to put an end to the Affordable Care Act. Well, you must say, they 
must have a much better idea. There must be a Republican proposal out 
there far better than the Affordable Care Act. There isn't. We haven't 
seen any. They have no alternative. They just want to kill anything 
that might have the name ``Obama'' on it.
  We have to do something about this to protect health insurance for 
the future, and the notion that the Republicans and President Trump are 
fighting the Supreme Court to eliminate the Affordable Care Act in this 
moment in American history, when we are fighting this pandemic, is 
impossible to explain.


                           Amendment No. 1788

  Madam President, I have been honored to work on the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee since December of 2012, when Senator Dan 
Inouye, the legendary Senator from Hawaii and recipient of a 
Congressional Medal of Honor, passed away. Since I have taken that job, 
I have been impressed many times over by the extraordinary Department 
of Defense and the actions they have taken--the development of 
technology like GPS, investing in critical medical research, and the 
abiding commitment to women and men in uniform, who make so many great 
sacrifices for our country. But I have also discovered at the same time 
how poorly we manage the Department of Defense. Our procurement system 
seems designed to generate redtape, delays, and cost overruns. Our top 
adversaries around the world develop game-changing technologies at a 
fraction of the cost that it takes us to develop them.
  There is going to be an amendment on the floor today about future 
spending in the Department of Defense offered by Senator Sanders. I 
heard what Senator McConnell had to say about it earlier. He seems to 
believe that any suggestion that there is misspending in the Department 
of Defense is not patriotic. Somehow you are a chicken if you raise any 
questions about waste in the Department of Defense. I couldn't disagree 
more.
  The Sanders amendment proposes a 10-percent budget cut in the 
Department of Defense. Well, I have taken a look, as others have, at 
the failed audits, the cost overruns, and the sclerotic bureaucracy at 
the Department of Defense. I believe the American taxpayer deserves 
more.
  One of my early hearings in the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee 
focused on the defense industrial base and the threat of sequestration. 
The lives of our servicemembers often depend on the equipment and 
training provided. When managed well, the defense industrial base 
generates the best equipment, next-generation technology, good jobs, 
and powerful weapons. However, I am concerned that holding defense 
contractors accountable for poor performance has not been the priority 
it should be today.
  Listen to this: From 2016 to 2019, military spending rose by 18 
percent. During the same period of time, the Department of Defense 
accumulated $18 billion in cost overruns for weapons programs. What 
about the contractors who generated those cost overruns? The top five 
defense contractors in America saw their profits increase by 44 percent 
in that same period. This doesn't add up.
  Businesses have the right to earn a profit, but taxpayers have the 
right to demand accountability. With defense spending on such a steep 
rise, we should be driven by the motto ``pay for performance.'' I don't 
believe that is the culture at the Department of Defense today.
  Senator Sanders wants to direct $74 billion to communities across the 
country--including many needy communities in my State of Illinois--for 
housing, healthcare, childcare, education, and jobs. Senator McConnell 
comes to the floor and calls that socialism. Socialism when it comes to 
education and childcare? I don't agree with him.
  There is considerable merit to what Senator Sanders has to say about 
the run-up in cost at the Department of Defense, but I do not agree 
with his basic approach of across-the-board cuts. When you start 
exempting things like military pay and healthcare, it means the 
remaining items take a deeper hit.
  The 14-percent cut that has been proposed for the remaining items at 
the Department of Defense would be a hard hit, no question about it. As 
I have said many times, sequestration didn't work, and we ought to 
learn a lesson from it.
  The National Guard should not have a 14-percent cut. Special victims 
counsels and sexual assault prevention programs should not be cut by 14 
percent. Cleaning up PFAS contamination at military bases should not be 
cut by 14 percent. Instead, we ought to look at the Department of 
Defense budget more carefully, not with an across-the-board cut.

  Let's start with the $16 billion OCO gimmick. OCO is the account 
created to fight a war. We started this account years and years ago, 
when we actually were engaged in a war. We have kept it alive to this 
day because it is a way to escape budget rules.
  The OCO gimmick funds were requested for routine Army, Navy, and Air 
Force operations that have nothing to do with fighting a war in 
Afghanistan or any other place. The administration requested these 
funds for the sole purposes of evading the caps on the base defense 
budget. Beyond that--listen to this--the President of the United 
States, who is arguing for this budget, was the first to raid it and 
take $8 billion or more out for his medieval wall on the southern 
border of the United States.
  The $18 billion in weapons systems overruns that I mentioned 
earlier--what could we do with $18 billion in cost overruns? Well, you 
could increase the budget for the National Institutes of Health medical 
research by almost 50 percent. That is one thing. You could provide 
student loan forgiveness for healthcare workers or hazard pay for these 
same men and women who risk their lives for us every day.
  I have to tell you, there is need for us to look to space in terms of 
our future defense. I still haven't been sold on this concept of the 
so-called Space Force. Putting millions of dollars into additional 
bureaucratic costs is hard for me to understand or explain.
  Ultimately, the Sanders amendment is going to be considered in this 
authorization bill, but if it is going anywhere in concept, it will be 
in the Appropriations Committee, where I serve. Our work as 
appropriators is to examine the details of the budget and make the best 
decisions for the taxpayers and for our national defense.
  I believe Senator Sanders is on the right track to demand 
accountability and to ask that we find cost overruns and expenditures 
that can be changed without jeopardizing our national defense. His 
exact approach is not one that I would endorse, but I have to say that 
I stand behind his concept that we need to ask harder questions about 
this massive spending.

[[Page S4368]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to comment, along with my colleague 
Senator Durbin, about the Sanders amendment. I must commend how 
thoughtful and knowledgeable Senator Durbin is about all these 
subjects. He has pointed out how there are too many military programs 
that are not well moderated and that have cost overruns that result in 
excess cost to the American public. We have to do something about those 
things, and we also understand that we have huge demand with respect to 
nondefense spending that we have to meet also.
  The Sanders amendment, as Senator Durbin pointed out, would impose an 
across-the-board cut to the Department of Defense, except for military 
personnel accounts and the defense health programs. What he would call 
a 10-percent across-the-board cut, when you take out health and 
personnel, becomes really a 14-percent cut to all the accounts at the 
Department of Defense.
  The danger, as so well illustrated by Senator Durbin, is that this 
type of indiscriminate getting rid of the good and paying for the bad 
that doesn't really work. It doesn't make sense. It reminds us all of 
the battles we had over sequestration, where Departments--not only the 
Department of Defense but the civilian Departments--had to fund 
programs because they met the cap and then cut other programs that were 
much more valuable because they exceeded the cap. That is not a way, as 
they proverbially say, to run a railroad, nor the Department of 
Defense.
  So we do have to look for specific areas to cut, and, as Senator 
Durbin said, a great deal of that is done and will be done in the 
Appropriations Committee where he is the ranking member. I am a 
colleague on the committee, and each year we have the challenge of 
taking the authorization that says ``you may do this'' and actually 
putting in the money to do it, and that effort is usually valuable, as 
is the authorization effort, and critically important.
  We have to make sure that a result of our deliberations is, first, 
the resources that are necessary to protect the men and women in the 
Armed Forces who protect us and also provide for the quality of life of 
their families and ultimately, of course, that we are able to deter any 
threat, and if not, defeat that threat decisively.
  This is a very important endeavor, and, again, suggesting that we 
just cut across the board and then put it someplace else is not, I 
think, commensurate with the kind of approach that we must take and we 
have to take going forward.
  The other factor, too, is that there are real ramifications for this 
that are not sometimes obvious. There are literally thousands and 
thousands--not just military personnel but civilian workers and 
construction workers and equipment manufacturing workers--who, in this 
indiscriminate, across-the-board cut, would lose their jobs at a time 
when we can't lose any jobs. This approach would be disruptive. I would 
not want to make a point to the disadvantage of the thousands and 
thousands of men and women who are working hard to take care of their 
families all across this country.
  Again, we do have to make serious investments in communities across 
this country that have been neglected, and I have been consistent in 
support of those efforts. We do have to make investments in our 
infrastructure for our economic liability and our economic efficiency. 
We do have to provide support in many, many different ways that 
transcends and goes beyond just the Department of Defense. In fact, one 
could say that just as vital a part of our national defense as our 
military budget is our education budget and our healthcare budget 
because our strength is not just military forces; our strength is 
knowledgeable citizens, our strength is healthy citizens, and our 
strength is an efficient economic system.
  But I think this approach, as I suggested today and I think the 
suggestion from Senator Durbin also was that this just across-the-board 
approach is good for a headline, it is good to make a point, but we are 
here to make policy, and I hope we do make policy. I hope we can 
continue in this National Defense Authorization Act to try to argue 
about issues that people feel are not appropriate spending or if, in 
fact, we need more spending and that in the appropriations process we 
will do that once again.

  Just as a reminder, this bill adheres to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 
2019. It is the final year of the Budget Act. So the numbers we are 
talking about today for the Department of Defense are not willy-nilly; 
they were not negotiated without the context of nondefense spending. It 
was a bipartisan agreement to set the levels of spending for both 
defense and nondefense, and that is what we are doing here today.
  We need a serious discussion about national spending priorities, not 
just defense spending priorities but priorities that look back to poor 
communities, industrial policy, infrastructure, education, daycare, the 
impact of artificial intelligence on the workplace. We have a lot to 
do, and I think we should get on to doing it but not with the shorthand 
message of ``let's cut everything here, and put it over there.'' Let's 
look at the serious issues, and let's confront them, and let's propose 
serious solutions.
  So because of these indiscriminate cuts, I will be forced to oppose 
this amendment by Senator Sanders.
  There is another amendment that will come before us today proposed by 
Senator Tester, and that is one I do support. Senator Tester's 
amendment will add additional diseases to those that the Veterans 
Administration already presumes are the result of exposure to Agent 
Orange by veterans during their military service in Vietnam.
  We know that exposure to the toxic chemical Agent Orange has had 
severe health consequences for veterans who answered the Nation's call 
to military service during the Vietnam conflict. Recognizing this, the 
Veterans Administration already presumes that certain diseases 
affecting these veterans are service connected as a result of the 
exposure to Agent Orange. These diseases include non-Hodgkin's 
lymphoma, soft tissue sarcoma, respiratory cancers, myeloma and type 2 
diabetes.
  We also know that there are other diseases that are not yet covered 
and that there are veterans who suffer from these diseases, and this 
conclusion is supported by a scientific review by the National Academy 
of Medicine. Parkinson's, bladder cancer, and hypothyroidism should 
share the same presumption of service connection as the diseases 
already presumed to be service connected.
  Our Vietnam veterans should not have the burden of proving by 
independent evidence that their diseases were caused by exposure to 
Agent Orange. The failure to add these conditions to the Veterans 
Administration's presumptive list continues to deny sick and aging 
veterans the healthcare and compensation that they have earned through 
service to our Nation and that they desperately need.
  Senator Tester's amendment begins to remedy this inequity, and I urge 
all Senators to vote for the Tester amendment.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, in about an hour we are going to take a 
vote that our servicemembers around the world will likely be watching. 
It is a critical vote on the amendment of my colleague from Vermont to 
blindly cut defense spending, taking a hatchet to the already agreed-
upon Bipartisan Budget Act.
  We have heard from my colleague Jack Reed from Rhode Island, who is 
part of the strong leadership on the Armed Services Committee and just 
spoke out against it, and I am going to speak out against it.
  I am going to spend some time explaining what this means. This is not 
just one amendment. This has national implications, and if you are 
watching in America, I want you to think about what is really going on 
here.
  First of all, my colleague from Vermont says that it is a 10-percent 
cut, but it is going exempt military personnel and healthcare 
accounts--which is true as part of the amendment--but it is actually 
going to compensate for the other cuts, so it is actually a 14-percent 
across-the-board cut to the Department of Defense. That is the 
amendment we are going to vote on.

[[Page S4369]]

  To paraphrase one of our great Presidents, Ronald Reagan: There they 
go again. There they go again.
  I chair the Subcommittee on Readiness of the Armed Services 
Committee. One of the reasons I ran for the Senate in 2014 was exactly 
this issue of military readiness. As a colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps 
Reserve, I had a little bit of an up close and personal view on it.
  The readiness of our Armed Forces in the second term of the Obama 
administration was plummeting. In the second term of the Obama 
administration, defense spending was cut by 25 percent, and, with that, 
the readiness of the men and women in the military plummeted. By the 
way, at the same time defense spending was cut by 25 percent, Russia 
was increasing defense spending by 34 percent, and China was increasing 
by 83 percent
  So let me just give an example. These numbers actually were 
classified, and they have been declassified. In 2015, when I arrived in 
the Senate, these were some of the numbers relating to readiness. 
Remember, we are supposed to be in charge of readiness here. Three of 
the 58 brigade combat teams in the U.S. Army--the brigade combat team 
is the 5,000 men and women deployed block in our military, and 3 of the 
58 were at the tier 1 level of readiness that you want for a deployed 
unit. You can understand why that was classified in 2015 because we 
certainly didn't want our adversaries to know that. So 5 percent of the 
U.S. Army was fully ready to fight. Less than half of Marine Corps Navy 
aviation could fly--another classified number, now unclassified. 
Training and flight time for all military pilots plummeted.
  When I arrived in 2015, the Obama administration proposed a cut of 
another 40,000 Active-Duty troops for the U.S. Army. One of the units 
they were looking to cut was the 4th Brigade of the 25th Infantry 
Division--the 4-25 at JBER in Alaska, the only airborne combat team in 
the Asia Pacific. I put every ounce of my energy into fighting that 
misguided decision. The 4-25 was not cut, thankfully. All the rest of 
the 40,000 were cut. We are still digging out of that hole.
  So I want to throw something out there because people don't think 
about it. Imagine if there had been a major contingency or, yes, a war 
in 2015 with these readiness numbers. Sometimes wars hit us when we are 
least expecting them. I am going to talk about that.
  I will tell you this: It would have been very ugly--not only for our 
national security but more importantly for our troops--for the men and 
women we are supposed to make sure are trained so that they never have 
to go into a fair fight, so we know they are always going to win.
  We just celebrated the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean 
war on June 25, 1950. I am a bit of a Korean war history buff. I will 
tell you this: What we didn't celebrate was actually what happened in 
the summer of 1950 at the outbreak of the Korean war.
  Here is what happened. The greatest military power in the world in 
1945 was the U.S. military. We had just won World War II. By 1950, due 
to dramatic defense cuts, lack of training, lack of readiness, our 
military had a very difficult time halting the invasion of a third-
world army, the North Korean army.
  For the history buffs who understand Korean war history--the military 
certainly does--they know what Task Force Smith was. It was the first 
American unit that went in to stop the North Korean army. Task Force 
Smith was obliterated. Hundreds were killed in the summer of 1950. As a 
matter of fact, thousands of young Americans died horrible deaths 
during the summer of 1950 because the leadership in Congress, the 
leadership in the executive branch, and the leadership in the Pentagon 
let the readiness of our Armed Forces plummet. Let me repeat that: 70 
years ago right now--if you look back 70 years ago in the summer of 
1950 on the Korean Peninsula--thousands of young Americans were being 
killed because they weren't trained and they weren't ready.
  This was probably one of the biggest derelictions of duty in U.S. 
history. Because it is a forgotten war, not many people know about it. 
But it was a dramatic failure of leadership in the Congress, the 
executive branch, and the military. The military even has a saying for 
this: ``No more Task Force Smith.'' We will never ever--ever--let our 
young men and women go fight a war where they are unprepared, and 
because of that, they die.
  I agree we need to do all we can to address many of the social issues 
that my colleague from Vermont highlights, particularly during this 
pandemic. But we must never, as a Congress, gut our military readiness 
to such a degree that our young men and women come home in body bags as 
opposed to victors. That is what happened in the summer of 1950.
  We were on a path toward this dangerous lack of readiness during the 
second term of the Obama administration. I cited the numbers. I chair 
the Subcommittee on Readiness. I have been all focused on this issue of 
rebuilding our readiness.
  Here is the good news. With the Republicans in control in the Senate 
and the White House, we have begun to dramatically rebuild our military 
and our readiness. This has been a priority of ours. This has certainly 
been a priority of mine. Many of my colleagues, Democrats and 
Republicans, particularly on the Armed Services Committee, have been 
working on rebuilding our military. When we were looking at these 
numbers, so many people on the Armed Services Committee, including Jack 
Reed, who just gave a very eloquent speech, recognized, whoa--dangerous 
world, dangerous neighborhood, and a military that is not ready. So we 
got to work.
  I enjoy my bipartisan work here in the Senate. Some of my best 
friends are from the other side of the aisle, but there are principle 
disagreements on key issues between some on this side of the aisle and 
the other side. One of them is about the degree to which we support our 
military and national defense.
  I know all of my colleagues are patriotic. I don't like doing the 
patriotism argument. Every Member of this body, all 100--we love our 
country. But there are some impressions when you look at what goes on 
here, when you look at the sweep of history with regard to readiness 
and funding our military.
  Again, to my Democratic colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, 
Defense Appropriations, who, like me, attend the hearings regularly, 
dig into the issues, know the threats our country faces, I think we 
work together to rebuild readiness. But at the national level, here are 
the facts. Think about it. Carter, Clinton, Obama, Biden--what do those 
administrations all have in common? They get into power, and they cut 
our military, and morale plummets, and readiness plummets.
  Let me go a little bit closer to home. Since I have been elected, the 
No. 1 bill my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
filibustered--the No. 1 bill when they want to take something hostage--
is the Defense appropriations bill. Ten times, since I have been in 
this body, the funding for our men and women has been pulled in as a 
hostage--ten times. No other bill in the last 5\1/2\ years, since I 
have been here, has been filibustered more than the Defense 
appropriations bill.
  Our friends in the media never report on this, but that is one of the 
issues that really burns me up here because it happens all the time. 
Trust me, our troops know it. They watch it, and they know it.
  Now we have a Sanders amendment for across-the-board DOD cuts of 14 
percent just as we are digging out of the readiness hole that we all 
know that we are in. If you don't acknowledge it, you are not paying 
attention.
  The Senate minority leader has recently come out in favor of the 
Sanders amendment. I wonder where Joe Biden is on the Sanders 
amendment.
  Of course, as my colleague from Illinois just mentioned, the Pentagon 
must do a better job of managing waste and cost overruns. I fully agree 
with that. In fact, the Trump administration was the first 
administration to finally undertake an audit of the Pentagon. Again, 
Democrats and Republicans on the Armed Services Committee pressed for 
it, and we finally got it. It took decades, but an audit of the 
Pentagon has finally happened.

  Make no mistake, the Sanders amendment is the first salvo in the 
national Democratic leadership's goal of defunding the military across 
the board. If you don't want to take my word for it, here is the 
POLITICO op-ed from Senator Sanders about his amendment titled: 
``Defund the Pentagon: The Liberal Case.''

[[Page S4370]]

  ``Defund the Pentagon''--there they go again. This is a really 
important issue. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle defeat 
this amendment overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly. The men and women of the 
military are watching this amendment. The men and women of the military 
know that their readiness 5 years ago was in a really bad state.
  The vote today and what is going to happen later--literally, if you 
look at history, we never know when the next conflict is coming. We 
didn't know that in the summer of 1950, the military was going to be 
rushed to the Korean Peninsula and would barely be able to hold its 
own. Thousands died because they weren't ready because of defense cuts 
by the Congress and the executive branch and the Pentagon.
  So this is an important vote. The lives of the men and women in our 
military and their readiness could well depend on this vote, and I urge 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to strongly reject it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                        Remembering Jim Posewitz

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, before I call up my amendment and get to 
the issue of our veterans in this country, I want to say a few words 
about a good friend and a legendary Montana conservationist named Jim 
Posewitz, who passed away a few weeks ago.
  He was a towering figure in Montana and in the history of 
conservation in our great State. He was a man who knew right from 
wrong, and Montanans know that he was almost always right and seldom 
wrong.
  Poz's accomplishments are too long to list, but any Montanan who 
fished in the Missouri River, learning the ethics of hunting or hiking 
in Montana's Rocky Mountain Front, owes a deep debt of gratitude to 
Poz's more than 30 years of work for the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and 
Parks and to his post-retirement work as a conservation advocate, 
ethicist, and leader.
  The Wilderness Act of 1964 says that America's wildest places are 
those where man himself is a visitor. Poz understood that power, that 
magic, and the importance of these places. He was relentless in his 
fight to protect them, and he was uncompromising in his faith that they 
bring us closer to nature, to each other, and to ourselves. He never 
stopped fighting for Montana and for the wild places in Montana.
  My heart goes out to Poz's family, including his life partner Gayle; 
his sons, Brian, Allen, Carl; Matthew and Matthew's wife Heather and 
their daughters, Sarah and Lindsay; his son Andrew and Andrew's wife 
Kelly and their daughters Madison and Charlotte; his stepdaughter Ann 
and Ann's husband Nate and their children, Joslin and Lyzander; his 
stepson Clayton and Clayton's wife Michelle and daughter Ayla. Poz is 
also survived by his brother John and John's wife Mary and their four 
children.
  He will be greatly missed. He is somebody they only make one of, an 
incredible human being.


                    Amendment No. 1972, as Modified

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1972, as modified, 
and ask that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Tester] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1972, as modified, to amendment No. 2301.

  The amendment is as follows

 (Purpose: To expand the list of diseases associated with exposure to 
 certain herbicide agents for which there is a presumption of service 
     connection for veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam)

       At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:

     SEC. __. ADDITIONAL DISEASES ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE TO 
                   CERTAIN HERBICIDE AGENTS FOR WHICH THERE IS A 
                   PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE CONNECTION FOR VETERANS 
                   WHO SERVED IN THE REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM.

       Section 1116(a)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(I) Parkinsonism.
       ``(J) Bladder cancer.
       ``(K) Hypothyroidism.''.

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I want to turn to the issue of the day, 
and that is this amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.
  Senator Reed talked about it a few minutes ago because, quite 
frankly, justice is long overdue for thousands of veterans who are 
currently suffering and dying from illnesses related to exposure to 
Agent Orange in Vietnam.
  You know, one of our most sacred duties is to take care of those who 
are wounded in service to this country, and the fact is, this 
administration, the Trump administration, has refused to expand the 
list of presumptive health conditions associated with Agent Orange to 
cover illnesses such as bladder cancer, hypothyroidism, and 
Parkinsonism. They don't seem to think that exposure to these toxic 
chemicals in Vietnam is a cost of war. Well, let me tell you, they are 
wrong. It is a cost of war. The fact is, this administration wants to 
outlive the Vietnam veterans, and they don't want to pay for it.
  Every time we get in a situation--and I should say the last time we 
got in a situation, for sure--we sent off our young men and women in 
the military, and we put the cost on the credit card for our kids to 
pay and don't think a thing about it, but when they come back and they 
are changed, all of a sudden, we don't want to pay for it, especially 
when these conditions, in particular, already meet the historical 
standard to be added to the Department of Veterans Affairs' presumptive 
list for service connection.
  Now, this is not just me talking. This is the National Academies of 
Medicine weighing in with their reviews of scientific evidence--
scientific evidence. Each day this administration stonewalls benefits, 
more and more veterans are forced to live with the detrimental effects 
of their exposure without the assistance that not only they have earned 
but that we owe them--veterans like Bill Garber from Great Falls, MT.
  In 1967, Bill enlisted in the U.S. Army, and within 6 months he was 
sent to fight in Vietnam, where he served as a combat engineer and 
demolitions expert with the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade 
Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division. During his yearlong tour in 
Vietnam, Bill saw heavy combat, and like most military folks who were 
in Vietnam, was exposed to Agent Orange.
  Now, more than 50 years later, after his service and his sacrifice, 
Bill suffers from tremors diagnosed as Parkinsonism, one of the three 
conditions that would be covered by the Department of Veterans Affairs 
if this amendment passes. Bill's story is heroic, but the truth is, he 
is one of tens of thousands of Vietnam veterans in this country who are 
still waiting for this White House to grant them the benefits they have 
earned.
  No more waiting. No more trying to outlive the Vietnam veteran. My 
amendment directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to acknowledge the 
overwhelming scientific evidence already put forward by veterans, 
scientists, and medical experts, and provide Vietnam veterans with the 
benefits they have earned in service to our country.
  Today, we have an opportunity to end the needless suffering and 
disappointment for an entire generation of veterans who are counting on 
Congress to simply do the right thing. The reality is that taking care 
of our veterans is a cost of war and is a cost that must be paid. We 
must hold this administration accountable on behalf of thousands of 
veterans like Bill who gave so much for this country, and I urge my 
colleagues to get this done with a ``yes'' vote on this amendment so we 
can end the wait for veterans who have already sacrificed greatly and 
who shouldn't be forced to wait 1 minute longer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in a few minutes we will vote on the 
Sanders amendment, which I support. As vice chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, I have worked with the Republican leadership 
and with Chairman Shelby in recent years to strike budget agreements 
that resulted in parity between defense and nondefense spending. At the 
same time, amid a national and international public health crisis, the 
need to infuse more resources into public health, education, and 
business development programs has never been greater.
  I have heard from my Republican colleagues on the floor objecting to 
the Sanders amendment. I would say to them that if they feel that 
strongly--

[[Page S4371]]

this is not authorized--but if they feel that strongly, they should 
tell their Republican leadership to allow the appropriations bill to 
come up so they can actually vote on the Defense bill. Right now, this 
is just idle chatter when they object to Senator Sanders' amendment, 
and yet they are unwilling themselves to actually vote up or down on 
the appropriations bill for not only the Department of Defense bill but 
the other Departments. The Sanders amendment, after all, maintains full 
support for the personnel needs of the Department of Defense, as well 
as the critical medical research supported throughout the Department. 
It would also take some of the Department's sweeping budget and reserve 
it for underfunded domestic needs. This is long overdue.
  I again call on my Republican colleagues to stop talking about the 
money you want or don't want to spend. Tell the Republican leader to 
allow the appropriations bills to come to the floor and vote up or 
down.


                        Remembering   John Lewis

  Mr. President, on another issue, I have had such an incredibly heavy 
heart since I heard Friday night my dear friend and hero, John Lewis 
passed away. I stand here on the Senate floor today to talk about him.
  When I got a call at our home in Vermont late that night, my wife, my 
son, and I just sat there and talked about John for hours and cried. We 
knew America lost a genuine hero--an unwavering lodestar who, over 
decades of selfless activism and public service, drew us closer to our 
ideals.
  I remember when he invited me in to watch actually a sit-in by 
Democratic Members in the House of Representatives when the Republican 
Speaker had closed down the House for them to have votes. He saw me 
outside, and I asked him what is going on, and he said: You are my 
brother.
  He took me by the arm, brought me in, and sat me down in the well of 
the House to watch what was going on. I was always humbled and honored 
to be called his brother, as he often did when we were together, 
including an unforgettable visit he had with us in Vermont just last 
year.
  I have been thinking so much of what we can say, and there aren't 
enough words--there certainly aren't--in paying tribute to a man whose 
life was defined by the relentless and fearless pursuit of equality. 
John bled, literally, and his bones were broken, literally, for the 
causes of civil rights. He came to Congress bearing those scars--a 
living, breathing reminder that our society's progress on racial 
equality came through the sacrifices of heroes like him.
  In Congress, John Lewis stood with equal moral clarity, serving as 
its conscience and reminding us that our work to build a genuinely 
equal and just society remains unfinished. His thundering words just 
months ago echo even more loudly today. He said:

       When you see something that is not right . . . you have a 
     moral obligation to say something. To do something. Our 
     children and their children will ask us, ``What did you do?''

  That is a question all of us must ask ourselves.


                     Voting Rights Advancement Act

  Mr. President, there is one thing I am doing today that I want to 
share with my fellow Senators and Americans. Today, I am reintroducing 
the Voting Rights Advancement Act, and we are renaming it the John 
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
  This is bipartisan legislation. It has 47 Senate cosponsors. It would 
safeguard what John fought over a lifetime to achieve: equality at the 
voting booth. The bill would restore the Voting Rights Act to end the 
scourge of minority voter suppression.
  Now, the House already passed a companion to the John Lewis Voting 
Rights Advancement Act in December. Now let's do our part. We can't 
claim to honor the life of John Lewis if we refuse to carry out his 
life's work. Of course, if we stand in the way of that work, that would 
be the wrong thing to do.
  So I would urge my fellow Senators, join me in calling on Senator 
McConnell to allow a vote up or down on the John Lewis Voting Rights 
Advancement Act.
  Let's do that for John, but let's not do it simply because it is 
named after him but because it is precisely what John would do. And if 
we have a moral compass, we should do it and take action to forge a 
more perfect Union, protect our democracy, and above all, do what is 
right.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 1788

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1788, and I ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] for himself and Mr. 
     Markey, proposes an amendment numbered 1788 to amendment No. 
     2301.

  The amendment is as follows

   (Purpose: To reduce the bloated Pentagon budget by 10 percent and 
   invest that money in jobs, education, health care, and housing in 
communities in the United States in which the poverty rate is not less 
                            than 25 percent)

       At the end of subtitle A of title X, add the following:

     SEC. ___. REDUCTION IN AMOUNT AUTHORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED 
                   FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 BY THIS ACT; ESTABLISHMENT 
                   OF GRANT PROGRAM TO REDUCE POVERTY AND INVEST 
                   IN DISTRESSED COMMUNITIES.

       (a) In General.--The amount authorized to be appropriated 
     for fiscal year 2021 by this Act is--
       (1) the aggregate amount authorized to be appropriated for 
     fiscal year 2021 by this Act (other than for military 
     personnel and the Defense Health Program); minus
       (2) the amount equal to 14 percent of the aggregate amount 
     described in paragraph (1).
       (b) Allocation.--The reduction made by subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (1) apply on a pro rata basis among the accounts and funds 
     for which amounts are authorized to be appropriated by this 
     Act (other than military personnel and the Defense Health 
     Program);
       (2) be applied on a pro rata basis across each program, 
     project, and activity funded by the account or fund 
     concerned; and
       (3) be used by the Secretary of the Treasury to carry out 
     the grant program described in subsection (c).
       (c) Grant Program.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     of the Treasury a grant program through which the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall, in coordination with the Secretary of 
     Education, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development, the Secretary of the Interior, and the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, provide 
     grants to eligible entities in accordance with the 
     requirements of this subsection.
       (2) Application.--An eligible entity that desires a grant 
     under this subsection shall submit to the Secretary of the 
     Treasury an application in such form and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       (3) Purposes.--
       (A) Permissible purposes.--An eligible entity that receives 
     a grant under this subsection may use the grant funds for any 
     of the following:
       (i) To construct, renovate, retrofit, or perform 
     maintenance with respect to an affordable housing unit, a 
     public school, a childcare facility, a community health 
     center, a public hospital, a library, or a clean drinking 
     water facility if any such building or facility is located 
     within the jurisdiction of the eligible entity.
       (ii) To remove contaminants, including lead, from 
     infrastructure with respect to the provision of drinking 
     water if that infrastructure is located within the 
     jurisdiction of the eligible entity.
       (iii) To replace, remove, or renovate a vacant or blighted 
     property that is located within the jurisdiction of the 
     eligible entity.
       (iv) To hire public school teachers to reduce class size at 
     public schools within the jurisdiction of the eligible 
     entity.
       (v) To increase the pay of teachers at public schools 
     within the jurisdiction of the eligible entity.
       (vi) To provide nutritious meals to children and parents 
     who live within the jurisdiction of the eligible entity.
       (vii) To provide free tuition to residents within the 
     jurisdiction of the eligible entity to attend public 
     institutions of higher education, including vocational and 
     trade schools.
       (viii) To provide rental assistance to residents within the 
     jurisdiction of the eligible entity.
       (ix) To reduce or eliminate homelessness within the 
     jurisdiction of the eligible entity.
       (B) Impermissible purposes.--An eligible entity that 
     receives a grant under this subsection may not use the grant 
     funds--
       (i) to construct a law enforcement facility, including a 
     prison or a jail; or
       (ii) to purchase a vehicle for a law enforcement agency.
       (4) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       (A) the term ``eligible entity'' means--
       (i) a county government with respect to a high-poverty 
     county;
       (ii) a local or municipal government within the 
     jurisdiction of which there are not fewer than 5 high-poverty 
     neighborhoods; and

[[Page S4372]]

       (iii) a federally recognized Indian Tribe that exercises 
     jurisdiction over Indian lands (as defined in section 824(b) 
     of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 
     1680n(b))) that contain high-poverty neighborhoods;
       (B) the term ``high-poverty county'' means a county with a 
     poverty rate of not less than 25 percent, according to the 
     Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates of the Bureau of the 
     Census for 2018;
       (C) the term ``high-poverty neighborhood'' means a census 
     tract with a poverty rate of not less than 25 percent, 
     according to the 5-year estimate of the American Community 
     Survey of the Bureau of the Census for years 2014 through 
     2018; and
       (D) the term ``public school'' means a public elementary 
     school or secondary school, as those terms are defined in 
     section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy for his support of 
our amendment, for his beautiful words on John Lewis, and for his 
insistence that this Senate makes sure that every American has the 
right to vote. That is not asking too much, and that is a bill we 
should deal with.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment I have 
filed for the National Defense Authorization Act to cut the bloated 
$740 billion Pentagon budget by 10 percent and use that $74 billion in 
savings to invest in human needs here at home.
  This amendment is being cosponsored by Senators Markey, Warren, 
Merkley, Wyden, and Senator Leahy and will receive a rollcall at 12:10 
p.m.
  This amendment has been endorsed by more than 60 organizations 
representing millions of working people, environmentalists, and 
religious leaders, including Public Citizen, the Union of Concerned 
Scientists, and Physicians for Social Responsibility.
  In America today, we are experiencing an extraordinary set of crises 
unprecedented in the history of the United States of America. We are in 
the midst of a public health crisis that is worse than at any time 
since the Spanish flu of 1918. Over the past 4 months, the coronavirus 
has infected more than 3.7 million Americans and caused nearly 140,000 
deaths.
  We are in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great 
Depression. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 119 million Americans have 
seen a decline in their income--unbelievable. One hundred and nineteen 
million Americans have seen a decline in their income, 50 million have 
filed for unemployment, and American households have lost over $6 
trillion in wealth.
  All over this country--in the State of Vermont and in every other 
State in America--people are going hungry in America. People are going 
hungry. And many, many people are frightened to death that they will 
soon be evicted from their apartments or will lose their homes to 
foreclosure.
  That is where the American people are today: loss of jobs, loss of 
income, hunger, eviction.
  On the other hand, there is another reality going on in America 
today. We don't talk about it much, but we should, and that is that 600 
billionaires in our country have seen their wealth go up by $700 
billion during the pandemic. So we entered this pandemic with massive 
income and wealth inequality since the pandemic, and the very rich have 
become even richer, while working people have seen a significant 
decline in their income and wealth.
  The current crisis, or series of crises, have revealed the 
extraordinary inequities in our economy. If people didn't know it 
before, they surely know it now.
  In the United States today, over half of our workers live paycheck to 
paycheck. Not surprisingly, when you live paycheck to paycheck, and the 
paycheck stops coming in, you are in financial distress. That means 
that your economic situation goes from poverty, which is low wages, to 
desperation, which is no income coming in at all. That means that you 
go hungry. It means that you may become homeless. It means that when 
you get sick, you no longer have health insurance or the income to see 
a doctor.
  What the pandemic has taught us is that a relatively low unemployment 
rate, which is what we had before the pandemic, does not adequately 
guarantee for the security and well-being of working families.
  When tens of millions of our people earn starvation wages, that is 
not a good economy. When 40 percent of our people do not have the 
savings to pay for a $400 emergency, that is not what I would call a 
good economy. When over half a million Americans are homeless and 18 
million families spend at least half of their incomes on housing, that 
is not a good economy. When 87 million people are uninsured or 
underinsured, that is not a good economy. In other words, to create a 
good economy, we are going to have to do a whole lot better than that.
  Further, over the last few months, hundreds of thousands of Americans 
have taken to the streets to demand justice for the murders of George 
Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks, and Ahmaud Arbery, among many 
others, and to end the rampant police brutality that we see in America 
today. These tragic killings of unarmed African Americans have 
highlighted the urgent need to rethink the nature of policing and to 
fix a broken and racist criminal justice system.
  On top of all of that--on top of a pandemic, on top of an economic 
collapse, on top of systemic racism--we have to address the existential 
threat facing this planet of climate change.
  A few weeks ago, temperatures in Siberia--the coldest region on 
Earth--topped 100 degrees, shattering records. If we do not get our act 
together and transform our energy system away from fossil fuel and into 
renewable energy, we will be leaving this planet increasingly unhealthy 
and uninhabitable for our kids and future generations
  That is where we are today: hunger, homelessness, racism, a warming 
and dangerously warming climate. These are the issues that we have to 
focus on. Our attention must be on improving the lives of ordinary 
Americans--working people, lower income people--and doing what we can 
to work with countries around the world to help the billions of people 
living in economic distress.
  With that, I rise today to make it abundantly clear that if we are 
going to address those issues, if we are going to protect the working 
families of this country who are now under so much stress, it is 
absolutely imperative that we change our national priorities.
  The status quo and conventional wisdom that we see on TV every day 
and that we hear on the floor of the Senate is no longer good enough. 
History has overtaken us. Unprecedented crises have overtaken us. The 
status quo is not good enough. We must respond.
  We must finally have the courage to stand up to powerful special 
interests and all of their campaign money and understand that we cannot 
allow these people to continue to have so much power over the economic 
and political life of this country; that we must start developing 
policies that work for working families, not just the rich, not just 
the powerful, and not just those who contribute to super PACs.
  Fifty-three years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., challenged our 
country to fight against three major evils: ``The evil of racism, the 
evil of poverty, and the evil of war.'' That was what Dr. King said 53 
years ago. And if there were ever a moment in American history when we 
need to respond to Dr. King's clarion call for justice and demand, as 
he stated, ``a radical revolution of values,'' now is that time. This 
is the moment for us to bring about what Dr. King called ``a radical 
revolution of values,'' whether it is fighting against systemic racism 
and police brutality, whether it is transforming our energy system away 
from fossil fuel, whether it is ending a cruel and dysfunctional 
healthcare system, or addressing the grotesque level of income and 
wealth inequality in our country, now is the time for change, real 
change.
  In my view, given all of the unprecedented crises our country faces, 
now is not the time to increase the Pentagon's bloated $740 billion 
budget, which is 53 percent of all discretionary spending in America. 
Let me repeat that. The military budget alone is 53 percent of all 
discretionary spending in this country.
  At a time when 28 million Americans are in danger of being evicted 
from their homes, now is not the time to be spending more on the 
military than the next 11 nations combined.
  At a time when 30 million Americans have lost their jobs, now is not 
the time to be spending more on national defense than we did at the 
height--the height--of the Cold War or the wars in

[[Page S4373]]

Korea or Vietnam. Let me repeat: spending more in real, inflation-
accounted-for dollars today on the military than we did during the Cold 
War or the wars in Korea or Vietnam.
  At this unprecedented moment in our history, now is the time to 
provide jobs, education, healthcare, and housing in American 
communities that have been ravaged by the global pandemic, by extreme 
poverty, by deindustrialization, and mass incarceration.
  If this horrific pandemic we are now experiencing has taught us 
anything, it is that national security means a lot more than building 
bombs, missiles, jet fighters, submarines, nuclear warheads, and other 
weapons of mass destruction. National security also means doing 
everything we can to improve the lives of our people, many of whom have 
been abandoned by our government decade after decade.
  The amendment that I am offering today would cut the $740 billion 
budget--Pentagon budget--by 10 percent and use that $74 billion in 
savings to invest in distressed communities in every State in this 
country, communities that have been ravaged by poverty, mass 
incarceration, and other enormous problems.
  Under this amendment, distressed cities and towns would be able to 
use this $74 billion to create jobs by building affordable housing, new 
schools, childcare facilities, community health centers, public 
hospitals, libraries, sustainable energy projects, and clean drinking 
water facilities. These communities would also receive Federal funding 
to hire more public school teachers, provide nutritious meals to 
children, and offer free tuition at public colleges, universities, and 
trade schools.
  Over and over again, our Republican friends--my colleagues here--have 
told us we cannot possibly afford to address the enormous problems 
facing working families: We just can't afford it. We don't have the 
money to deal with homelessness and hunger and inadequate education.
  That is what they say every day. We have been told that we cannot 
afford to make public colleges and universities tuition-free or to 
provide a decent income for every man, woman, and child. But when it 
comes to spending $740 billion on the military, well, suddenly, hey, 
money is no problem; we can spend as much as we want. Hey, let's listen 
to all of the lobbyists from the military-industrial complex who flood 
Capitol Hill and tell us all their needs. We have to listen to them, 
but we don't listen to the children in this country who may not have 
enough food to eat or the workers in this country who are sleeping out 
in their cars. We don't listen to them, but when it comes to the 
military, hey, no end to the money that we can provide.
  To my mind, that is unacceptable. We don't need more nuclear weapons. 
We don't need more cruise missiles. We don't need more fighter jets. 
What we do need in this country, desperately, is more healthcare, more 
housing, more childcare, and better schools.
  Now is the time to fundamentally change our national priorities, and 
that is what this amendment is all about. This amendment in itself is 
not going to do anywhere near what we need to do as a country, but it 
is an important step forward in changing the way we think about our 
needs.
  Let me be clear. If we were to institute a 10-percent cut in military 
spending, that $74 billion could provide high-quality childcare to 
every family in America. Imagine that. We could solve the childcare 
crisis in America just by cutting the military budget by 10 percent.
  We could, by cutting the military budget by 10 percent, provide 
section 8 housing vouchers to all of the 7.7 million families in 
America who are paying more than half of their limited incomes on rent.
  A 10-percent cut to the Pentagon could provide a free college 
education for 2 million low-income students.
  A 10-percent cut to the Pentagon is enough to hire 900,000 teachers 
in the poorest schools in America.
  So I am a little bit tired about hearing that we don't have enough 
money for nuclear weapons, that we need more money for missiles and 
tanks and guns--that we need more for all of that, yet we are turning 
our backs on Americans who are hurting the most.
  I believe this is a moment in history when it would be a very good 
idea for all of my colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to remember 
what former Republican--Republican--President Dwight D. Eisenhower said 
in 1953. I think we all recall that Eisenhower knew something about 
military budgets and the war because he was the four-star general who 
led the Allied forces to victory in Europe during World War II. He was 
not a passivist. He was not an anti-war activist. He was a four-star 
general.
  Dwight D. Eisenhower said:

       Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every 
     rocket signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who 
     hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not 
     clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It 
     is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its 
     scientists, the hopes of its children.

  Right now, when the world is searching for treatment of the 
coronavirus, when we are searching desperately and spending billions 
looking for a vaccine, maybe it might be a good idea to be educating 
our young people to figure out how we deal with disease--with cancer 
and schizophrenia and Alzheimer's and diabetes--rather than putting 
more and more scientists into figuring out how we can blow the world up 
a dozen times over.

  What Eisenhower said was true--profoundly true--67 years ago, and it 
is true today, maybe even truer today.
  When we analyze the Defense Department budget, it is interesting to 
note that the Congress has appropriated so much money for the Defense 
Department that the Pentagon literally does not know what to do with 
it. Between 2013 and 2018, they actually returned more than $80 billion 
in funding back to the Treasury. They had more money than they could 
spend.
  In my view, the time is long overdue for us to take a hard look not 
only at the size of the Pentagon budget but at the enormous amount of 
waste, cost overruns, fraud, and at the financial mismanagement that 
has plagued the Department of Defense for decades.
  Let's be clear. We don't talk about it, but let's be clear. About 
half of the Pentagon's budget goes directly into the hands of private 
contractors, not our troops. Over the past two decades, virtually every 
major defense contractor in the United States has paid billions of 
dollars in fines and settlements for misconduct and fraud, all while 
making huge profits on those government contracts. Virtually every 
major defense contractor has been found guilty of misconduct or fraud.
  Since 1995, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and United Technologies have 
paid over $3 billion in fines or related settlements for fraud or 
misconduct. Further, I find it interesting that the very same defense 
contractors that have been found guilty or reached settlements for 
fraud are also paying their CEOs excessive--excessive--compensation 
packages. Last year, the CEOs of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman 
both made over $20 million in total compensation, while around 90 
percent of these companies' revenue came from defense contracts. In 
other words, for all intents and purposes, these companies are 
basically government agencies. Ninety percent of the revenue coming in 
comes from the taxpayers of this country. Meanwhile, the CEOs of those 
companies make over 100 times more than the Secretary of Defense makes. 
It is not too surprising, therefore, that we have a revolving door 
where our military people end up on the boards of directors of these 
major defense companies.
  Moreover, as the GAO has told us, there are massive cost overruns in 
the Defense Department's acquisition budget that we continue to ignore 
year after year. According to the GAO, the Pentagon's $1.8 trillion 
acquisition portfolio currently suffers from more than $628 billion in 
cost overruns, with much of the cost growth taking place after 
production.
  A major reason why there is so much waste, fraud, and abuse at the 
Pentagon is the fact that the Defense Department remains the only 
Federal agency in America that has not been able to pass an independent 
audit. Many of us will recall what then-Secretary of Defense Donald 
Rumsfeld--George W. Bush's Secretary of Defense--told the American 
people on the day before 9/11. It never got a lot of attention--the day 
before 9/11. Rumsfeld said:


[[Page S4374]]


  

       Our financial systems are decades old. According to some 
     estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.

  I don't know that the situation has changed very much since 2001 and 
Rumsfeld's remarks. Yet, nearly 20 years after Rumsfeld's statements, 
the Defense Department has still not passed a clean audit, despite the 
fact that the Pentagon controls assets in excess of $2.2 trillion or 
roughly 70 percent of what the entire Federal Government owns.
  I believe in a strong military, but we cannot keep giving more money 
to the Pentagon than it needs when millions of children in this country 
face hunger every day and 140 million Americans cannot afford the basic 
necessities of life without going into debt.
  In 1967 Dr. King warned us that ``a nation that continues year after 
year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social 
uplift is approaching spiritual death.'' I believe the time is long 
overdue for us to listen to Dr. King.
  At a time when, in the richest country in the history of the world, 
so many of our people are struggling, now is the time to change our 
priorities because, as Dr. King stated, we are approaching spiritual 
death.
  At a time when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of 
almost any major country on Earth, at a time when 60,000 Americans die 
each year because they can't get to a doctor on time and 1 out of 5 
Americans cannot afford the prescription drugs their doctors prescribe, 
we need to start focusing on those people, not on the military-
industrial complex.
  At this moment of unprecedented national crisis--a pandemic, an 
economic meltdown, the demand to end systemic racism, and an unstable 
President--it is time for us to truly focus on what we value as a 
society and to fundamentally transform our national priorities. Cutting 
the military budget by 10 percent and investing that money in human 
needs is a modest way to begin that process.
  Let me conclude by once again quoting Dwight D. Eisenhower. I don't 
know that I have ever quoted a Republican quite as much as I have 
during these remarks, but he is somebody whom I respected very much.
  This is what Eisenhower said when he left office. This was back in 
1961. He was out, and John F. Kennedy was coming in. This is what he 
said. I hope we can all remember this. He said:

       In the councils of government, we must guard against the 
     acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or 
     unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential 
     for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will 
     persist.

  Eisenhower was right then, and, if anything, the situation is worse 
today. Now is the time for us to stand up to the greed and 
irresponsibility of the military industrial complex. Now is the time to 
address the needs of working families, the elderly, the children, the 
sick, and the poor.
  Let us vote for the Sanders-Markey-Warren-Merkley-Wyden-Leahy 
amendment to cut the Pentagon budget by 10 percent and invest in human 
needs here at home.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I am proud to speak in support of my 
amendment with Senator Sanders to prioritize investments in our 
communities over a bloated Pentagon budget. I thank Senator Sanders for 
his leadership on this issue, bringing forth this fundamental tension 
that exists within our society.
  The men and women of the Armed Forces deserve our admiration, our 
respect, and our support. Day in and day out, they defend our country's 
interests in all corners of the world, and their families sacrifice 
alongside them. But what makes America the envy of the world is not 
simply the strength of our military but the strength of our people.
  And 2020 has brought historic challenges: a global pandemic, a 
growing recession, a reckoning on the systemic racism that pervades our 
country. We have also seen an estimated 5.4 million American workers 
lose their health insurance between February and May, leaving them even 
more vulnerable to a virus surging in every corner of this country.
  The Sanders-Markey amendment states that we cannot afford, in this, 
our moment of national crisis, to spend three-quarters of a trillion 
dollars on bloated defense spending--spending that is supposed to 
protect or country yet did nothing to inoculate against the most 
profound public health emergency in a century.
  This amendment is also in keeping with President Eisenhower's 
warning, as Senator Sanders said, that ``we must guard against the 
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by 
the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise 
of misplaced power exists, and will persist.''
  Persist it has. This $740 billion fiscal year 2021 budget before us 
is the fulfillment of Ike's worst fears. In his address to the American 
people, President Eisenhower also predicted that a permanent arms 
industry would come to call the shots. After Japan surrendered aboard 
the USS Missouri in 1945, ending the Second World War, that permanent 
arms industry made its fixture.
  After we emerged victorious in a historic and ideological struggle 
against the Soviet Union that brought us to the brink of nuclear 
holocaust, Eisenhower's feared permanent arms industry stuck around and 
retooled to advocate for new weapons to fight the endless war to come.
  The catastrophic attacks of September 11 led to more than a doubling 
of the Pentagon's budget. Multiple Presidents have stretched a limited 
authorization of military force to go after those responsible for the 
9/11 attacks--to fight new enemies in new geographies, outside of 
Afghanistan.
  All told, so far, we have spent $6.4 trillion in the wars in 
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other places since 2001. Even as those 
wars wind down, the defense industry is pushing for costly new 
acquisition programs to maintain superiority over China and Russia.
  The forecasted ``permanent arms industry'' begins to explain why the 
Pentagon accounts for half of the entire fiscal year 2021 U.S. 
discretionary budget. Our military budget is larger than the next 10 
countries combined. Our battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies 
combined, with 11 of those 13 navies represented by our allies or our 
partners.
  However, every dollar spent on the Pentagon is one fewer available to 
fight the scourge of poverty in this country, to strengthen the social 
safety net and protect American families. Our communities have suffered 
while we spend ourselves into extreme U.S. military dominance.
  I fear that the Pentagon budget we debate today shows to a child that 
we don't prioritize giving him or her a quality education; shows 
mothers and fathers that, in the wealthiest country in the world, they 
will forever remain one illness away from financial ruin; shows a 
family that the dream of homeownership, much less affordable rental 
housing, will remain out of their grasp; shows frontline heroes working 
in hospitals and nursing homes in Chelsea, MA, and across the country 
that they have no choice but to go work sick because their employer 
does not offer paid leave.
  I reject the false choice between a strong U.S. military and strong 
American communities. Trillions of dollars in defense spending did 
nothing to protect us from the coronavirus pandemic. The defense 
spending can't protect us from the destruction of the environment and 
the worsening climate crisis. Yet we are due to spend nearly 70 times 
more on defense than we will to protect against the next pandemic and 
other global health challenges.
  We must no longer equate national security with our inventory of 
planes, missiles, and nuclear weapons system, and if coronavirus is 
truly a war, as President Trump says it is, he is duty-bound to embrace 
the fact that national security also means health, housing, and 
financial security, and national security means doing everything we can 
to save and improve lives in American communities, particularly 
communities of color, that have been neglected for too long and that 
have born the worst of the coronavirus impacts.

  Our amendment begins that important work by making smart cuts of 10 
percent to the budget of the Pentagon for this fiscal year and 
redirecting those funds to the Department of the Treasury to administer 
a grant program to strengthen vulnerable, low-income communities.

[[Page S4375]]

  For example, in Massachusetts, we would be eligible to receive up to 
$1 billion in Federal funding to create jobs by building affordable 
housing, schools, childcare facilities, community health centers, 
public hospitals, libraries, and clean drinking water facilities, 
removing lead pipes and replacing vacant or blighted properties; to 
improve education by hiring more public school teachers to reduce class 
sizes, increasing teacher pay, providing universal nutritious meals, 
and providing free tuition to attend public colleges, universities, or 
trade schools; and to make housing more affordable by providing rental 
assistance and eliminating homelessness.
  We should prioritize eradicating poverty, not war. We should 
prioritize battling global killer diseases, not developing a new weapon 
designed to eradicate the human race. It is time we funded education, 
not annihilation--Medicaid, not missiles.
  Where do we start to make Defense Department cuts? First, we must end 
the war in Afghanistan, which would save tens of billions of dollars. 
The time is long overdue to bring our men and women home. And it is 
time to double down on other tools of U.S. statecraft--diplomacy and 
development--to shape a better future for Afghanistan, particularly 
Afghan women.
  As we work to put a stop to endless war and repeal the 2001 AUMF, the 
Pentagon must realign its budget to reflect the cold, hard wisdom of 
Ronald Reagan that ``a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be 
fought.''
  Between the Departments of Defense and Energy, we are due to spend 
nearly $50 billion on nuclear weapons in fiscal year 2021. Over the 
next three decades, we are on course to spend $1.7 trillion on nuclear 
weapons overkill. We can field a safe, secure, and effective nuclear 
deterrent--one that assures our allies and partners--all without 
breaking the bank.
  Our people, not our military parades, are the source of American 
greatness. Over the past few months, this country has experienced a 
reckoning, as Americans from all walks of life have had enough. They 
have had enough of being lied to by the President about the true threat 
of a deadly disease. They have had enough of people of color being 
murdered in cold blood by the very police forces meant to serve and 
protect them. And they have had enough of being told there just isn't 
enough money to support the well-being of their communities, while they 
can see billions in taxpayers' dollars going to unnecessary wars and 
nuclear weapons programs and to benefit the President's friends and 
family.
  The choice today is very clear. We are ready to take the smallest 
step, a 10-percent cut, to begin to address the gap in resources in 
this country. This is the time for us to stand up. We are about to have 
a debate on how much money we have to help families in this country 
through this pandemic. We are being told that money is not there for 
unemployment insurance; for cities and towns not to have to lay off 
teachers; for cities and towns to have the testing, the contact 
tracing, and the personal protective equipment to protect families in 
our country; to make sure we can provide sick care leave; and to make 
sure we can provide childcare for families in this country. We are told 
there is not enough money. Yes, there is, and that money is in the 
defense budget of the United States of America, so that we can protect 
those families.
  Too many people right now are nostalgic for a time that never was, 
instead of having the idealism which we need to battle the issues of 
today. But for the poor, the sick, the elderly, the disabled, the Black 
and Brown and immigrant families in this country, the past is just a 
memory and the future is their hard reality.
  This is the time for the U.S. Senate to stand up and to begin the 
funding of the programs which every family needs to protect themselves. 
I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment, and, again, I thank Senator 
Sanders for his incredible progressive leadership on this issue and for 
so many others.
  I yield back.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1788

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on agreeing to the Sanders amendment No. 1788.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 23, nays 77, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 135 Leg.]

                                YEAS--23

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Durbin
     Gillibrand
     Hirono
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Smith
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Wyden

                                NAYS--77

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 23, the nays are 
77.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1788) was rejected.


                Vote on Amendment No. 1972, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the Tester amendment, No. 1972, as modified.
  Ms. HASSAN. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 136 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     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 (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--6

     Braun
     Cruz
     Kennedy
     Lee
     Paul
     Scott (FL
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romney). On this vote the yeas are 94, the 
nays are 6.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1972) was agreed to.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment No. 
     2301 to Calendar No. 483, S. 4049, a bill to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal

[[Page S4376]]

     year 2021 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Mike Crapo, Pat Roberts, John Cornyn, 
           John Barrasso, Cory Gardner, Roy Blunt, Thom Tillis, 
           Marsha Blackburn, Mike Rounds, Shelley Moore Capito, 
           Kevin Cramer, John Thune, James M. Inhofe, Jerry Moran, 
           Joni Ernst, John Boozman.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 2301 offered by the Senator from Oklahoma to S. 4049, a 
bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for military 
activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 87, nays 13, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 137 Leg.]

                                YEAS--87

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     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
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--13

     Booker
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Kennedy
     Lee
     Markey
     Merkley
     Paul
     Romney
     Sanders
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). On this vote, the yeas are 87, 
the nays are 13.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion was agreed to.
  The Senator from Iowa.


                                 China

  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, the coronavirus doesn't come with a label 
saying ``Made in China,'' but perhaps it should. This pandemic, which 
began in Wuhan, China, has flooded the world just like so many products 
from China that we all now rely upon to protect ourselves against the 
spread of the contagion. The situation underscores the conundrum our 
Nation faces balancing the need to work with the Chinese Government and 
the challenges of holding the Communist Party accountable for its 
devious deeds.
  Plain and simple: The Chinese Communist Party attempted to cover up 
the outbreak of COVID-19 from the very beginning and continues to do so 
today. Rather than containing the spread of the virus, the regime has 
focused on containing knowledge of the outbreak, going so far as 
punishing Chinese scientists who dared to warn about the virus's 
imminent danger.
  As a result, we now face a worldwide pandemic that has claimed 
countless victims and could impact every aspect of our lives for 
months, if not years, to come. China doesn't play by the rules. They 
constantly seek to undermine the law. And if you ask an Iowa farmer, 
they will tell you the same.
  For years, China has stolen intellectual property and reneged on 
their trade agreements. While we have seen China still purchasing some 
of our corn and soybeans, they haven't completely held up their end of 
the deal when it comes to China phase one.
  Folks, when China cheats on trade deals, the impact is real: American 
jobs are lost and wealth is transferred from the United States to the 
Communist Party of China. This is unacceptable, especially after the 
damage already caused to our economy by China's mishandling of the 
coronavirus outbreak.
  For decades, our leaders in Washington played along, remaining quiet 
as China stole American intellectual property and scientific research, 
cheated on trade deals, and violated basic human rights. Those days are 
over.
  President Trump is standing up to China by taking decisive actions 
against the Communist regime for its flagrant violation of trade deals 
and crackdown on the autonomy and rights of Hong Kong.
  I have heard this from farmers in Iowa. They know that this President 
is standing up for them and pushing back on China. And here in the 
Senate, my colleagues and I are also holding China accountable.
  Right now, I am laser-focused on decreasing our dependency on China 
for critical supplies. The COVID-19 pandemic has been what I call a 
great awakening when it comes to the vulnerabilities in our supply 
chain. The United States has become far too dependent on Communist 
China for items like personal protective equipment, prescription drugs, 
and other essential medical supplies. We need to fix that. And that is 
what I am fighting to do.
  During my military service, including as a logistics battalion 
commander in the Iowa Army National Guard, I learned firsthand the 
importance of securing the defense supply chain. We cannot continue to 
rely on our adversaries, like China, for critically important national 
security materials.
  That is why, in this year's annual Defense bill, I made it a priority 
to boost support for university research in places like Iowa to ensure 
we can make and manufacture metals and materials here at home. This 
will help make sure China doesn't corner the world market on key 
materials.
  Retaking our supply chain from Red China also means removing 
unnecessary redtape imposed by Washington. I am working to waive the 
tax penalties for manufacturing and medical supply companies that 
choose to relocate to America.
  I have also demanded the Treasury Department investigate how Chinese 
companies are avoiding taxes that U.S. businesses have to pay.
  Iowans across the State have told me how much they appreciate this 
President standing up for them by pushing back on the years of bad 
actions by the Communist Party. They also want to end our dependence on 
that same Communist regime.
  Yes, we can and we should continue trading important agricultural 
products. But at the same time, we should bring jobs back and make 
critical supplies ourselves so that when you look at a product's label, 
it proudly reads ``Made in the U.S.A.''
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Ernst for putting 
this colloquy together. What she just said with regard to the 
importance of having reliable sources here in America is absolutely 
right.
  The supply chain issue is one that I hope we will address in this 
COVID package--for starters, with regard to our personal protective 
gear, the PPE, because if we can't rely on having masks and gowns and 
other PPE made here in America, it is tough for us, particularly during 
an international pandemic like this, to build and rely on countries 
like China. Also, frankly, some of the product that comes from China 
has not been reliable itself.
  I appreciate what you are doing there and also the work you are doing 
to encourage us to be more resourceful here at home, to be sure we are 
doing the things we have to do to protect ourselves from foreign 
influence, including China.
  Part of our issue with China, I think, is that for the last several 
years, a lot of us point fingers at China and we are not pointing 
fingers, frankly, at our internal problems. We need to get our house in 
order here in America and protect ourselves better. We have legislation 
to do that, which we just reported out of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee today. It has to do with this issue of China coming to the 
United States and systemically targeting promising research and 
promising researchers, and saying: We would like to get that research.
  The research is often supported by the U.S. taxpayer. It is sort of 
tough

[[Page S4377]]

here for us in America to lose our research and our innovation and our 
intellectual property to other countries. It is particularly tough when 
taxpayers pay for it, and $150 billion a year of taxpayer money goes to 
the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and 
the Department of Energy to do basic research.
  That is good. We have helped to develop important therapies and cures 
for some kinds of cancer. We helped to develop the internet. It has 
been very helpful on manufacturing processes. A lot of great things 
have come out of that research.
  But one thing that really troubles me is that for 20 years now, with 
China taking the lead and other countries, as well--Iran, North Korea, 
and others--they have again targeted these researchers and this 
research and said: We want to get that. And, frankly, they get it on 
the cheap because the research is being paid for by our tax dollars.
  Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. Recently, in 
my home State of Ohio, there was a case along these lines. I applaud 
the FBI and the Department of Justice and our U.S. attorneys for 
finally getting on top of this issue. We spent a year studying this 
issue here in the Congress in what is called the Permanent Subcommittee 
on Investigations, which I chair. We found out that this was a huge 
problem and wrote a report late last year.
  In the report, we implored our Federal law enforcement agencies to 
get on this issue. In fact, we had a hearing where an FBI agent 
testified and said that it is true. We haven't been focused on this, 
and we have to make that up now.
  They are making up for it. They are arresting a number of people. 
They are doing the things that should be done to try to stop some of 
this stealing, really, of our seed corn, our technology, our 
innovation, our intellectual property.
  Here is the Ohio example. Recently, the FBI announced that it had 
arrested a researcher connected with the world-renowned Cleveland 
Clinic and Case Western Reserve University. This individual had 
received a huge grant from the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. 
That grant was for about $3.6 million. But then this same individual--
of course, not telling NIH or telling Cleveland Clinic or Case Western 
or anybody else--had accepted money from China.
  In the contracts that we were able to research during our 
investigation, these contracts with China say you are not allowed to 
reveal that you have this relationship with China, that you are getting 
the money from China. They not only gave this guy money--$3 million--
but they gave him a deanship at Wuhan University. They gave him money 
to hire people in Wuhan. They gave him the ability to travel around 
America recruiting others. We think he recruited 30 or 40 people, 
according to the FBI.

  Again, these are all allegations. His arrest has been made. He 
actually is alleged to have taken biological samples from Cleveland, 
OH, to China--this taxpayer-paid NIH research--literally, physically 
taking these to China. They also, by the way, provided lodging for him 
with a three-bedroom apartment in Wuhan. That is luxury.
  This is about money. Unfortunately, this is about people who are not 
patriots but instead are willing to sell us out by selling their 
research, their expertise that our taxpayers have funded to China and 
other countries.
  NIH, recently, by the way, fired or forced the resignation of 54 
researchers--not 1 or 2 or 3, but 54 people. We have been pushing them 
hard to find out who these people are and what they are doing. They 
haven't been willing to reveal that yet because this is a matter under 
investigation. They have told us that of those who are under 
investigation at NIH, 90 percent have ties to China--90 percent.
  Wake up, America. Here we are. We are in a situation where other 
countries, particularly China, have targeted American research, 
American researchers, and are now taking this back to China to benefit 
their military, to benefit their economy, and to benefit their 
healthcare system.
  By the way, I do not believe this is for academic purposes. It is 
wrong what is happening, but it is even more wrong because this is not 
as if they are taking it back to do joint research on an academic 
basis.
  Let me tell you what the State Department told us at our hearing on 
this topic at the end of last year. They said: ``The Chinese Communist 
Party has declared the Chinese university system to be on the front 
line of military-civilian fusion efforts for technology acquisition.''
  This is our own State Department. That means there is a clear link 
between the research that is being taken in America and the latest 
advancement in China's military and its economy.
  It has been happening for 20 years. It is time to put an end to it. 
The legislation that we were able to get through committee today takes 
a really important step in that direction. There are four or five 
elements of it.
  One of the most important to me is giving the FBI and law enforcement 
the tools they need to go after these individuals by creating a new 
criminal law that says if you lie on these forms, if you are taking 
money from China, it is certainly a conflict of commitment and a 
conflict of interest. You can be taken to task for that and held 
accountable. Right now you can't.
  They are arresting these people on things like mail fraud, tax 
evasion. It is a little like how they used to go after gangsters before 
there were laws directly related to racketeering and so on. This is 
something where we need to be sure that we are giving people the tools 
that they need.
  We also help the State Department to keep these people out, and we 
help with regard to our universities to ensure that we are reporting 
and being transparent as to the money universities are receiving from 
China and other countries.
  Again, I thank my colleague from Iowa for having this colloquy. I see 
we have two other colleagues here. I know they are really well-versed 
and involved in these issues, and I want to hear from them, as well.
  I would just say that I hope, on a bipartisan basis--by the way, our 
legislation is bipartisan. Our investigation was bipartisan. I would 
say this is nonpartisan. This is an American issue. We should all be 
standing up to protect the American research enterprise and to be sure 
that our taxpayers, when they pay for this important research, have the 
benefit of it rather than its being taken, in particular, by China to 
benefit their military and their economy, which has been going on for 2 
decades.
  It is time to wake up.
  I yield to my colleague from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona
  Ms. McSALLY. I thank my colleague from Ohio and others here from 
Florida and Iowa for coming together to talk about this important 
American issue and national security issue.
  I served 26 years in the military. In my last years in service and 
since then, we have seen the threat of the rise of China. It is a 
threat to America's security, our jobs, and our role as a leader in the 
world. They are on a deliberate path to try to dominate the world and 
shape it into their vision. They need to be stopped.
  When I was a cadet at the Air Force Academy, we had an honor code 
that said: ``I will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate among us 
anyone who does.'' China has been lying, cheating, and stealing for far 
too long. Americans are now waking up to this threat and are resolved 
to change the trajectory and hold China accountable, but this can't be 
done by us alone. Our European partners and others in the Pacific and 
elsewhere need to join with us and also wake up to China's dangerous 
path and work with us to stop them.
  We have been calling this geostrategic shift a return to ``Great 
Power Competition,'' as if to assume that we are all playing by the 
same rules. We aren't. China is playing by their own rules and cheating 
the system for their own gain and power. The Chinese Communist Party is 
a reckless, predatory adversary that is dedicated to subverting U.S. 
interests and supplanting our Nation as the world's dominant leader.
  Over the past 10 years, China has increased their military spending 
by 85 percent. Their investment in defense has been used to build their 
navy, expand their missile stockpile, and emerge as a leader in 
technologies like hypersonics, cyber warfare, and artificial 
intelligence.

[[Page S4378]]

  This buildup has been far from defensive alone. From their illegal 
maritime claims among several sovereign states, then building 
artificial islands where they didn't exist before to militarize them in 
the South China Sea with their maneuvers and exercises that are 
aggressive and belligerent, to their covert attempts to infiltrate the 
United States through our universities and stealing our technology, 
Chinese forces are expanding their tentacles far beyond our borders, to 
the detriment of American national security interests.
  Congress must do our part to respond to this threat. For these 
reasons, I introduced several pieces of legislation that immediately 
stopped China from taking advantage of government funds and taxpayer 
dollars to purchase products and services from Chinese companies with 
ties to Chinese military.
  To end our reliance on China's control and manufacturing of PPE, I 
introduced legislation to authorize the President to incentivize 
American companies to produce medical devices, equipment, and drugs.
  We saw at the onset of the coronavirus that it was clear that 
outsourcing the production of PPE to an adversary was wrong and risky. 
I witnessed firsthand the ingenuity of Arizona companies that stepped 
up to help fill the gap. That is no excuse for ignoring the fact that 
we have to bring manufacturing home of vital medical equipment and PPE 
so that, once again, it is made in America.
  Finally, the coronavirus outbreak has taken a catastrophic toll on 
our country and the world. Make no mistake. The virus began in China 
and spread globally because the Chinese Government lied about what they 
knew about it, and they destroyed evidence and silenced doctors and 
whistleblowers.
  Like the rest of the Nation, Arizona has suffered devastating 
consequences due to this pandemic. Already, we have lost over 2,900 
Arizonans, plus the economic toll.
  Communist China unleashed this virus on the world, and it should face 
severe repercussions for their coverups and lies about the origins and 
spread. China's actions cost lives and devastated the world economy, 
and it must be held accountable.
  I moved to do just that this week by introducing the Civil Justice 
for Victims of COVID Act. Americans who have been victimized by the 
lies and deceit of the Communist Party--to include those who lost loved 
ones, suffered business losses, or personally harmed--deserve the 
opportunity to hold China accountable and demand just compensation.
  I appreciate many of my colleagues joining with me on this 
legislation. It is due time that we hold China accountable for their 
malevolent behavior--not just over the past several months but over 
several decades.
  The United States must take immediate action and, with strength, 
demonstrate that the greatest country in the world will not be taken 
for a fool. Our Republic and our freedoms that it stands for will allow 
our country to prevail over China's Communist and rogue agenda. With 
American will, American innovation, and the American spirit, we will 
prevail.
  I appreciate my colleague from Florida joining as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. I want to recognize my colleagues from Arizona, 
Ohio, Texas, and Iowa for their commitment to holding Communist China 
accountable and supporting Americans.
  I rise today to discuss the threat of Communist China--a threat that 
poses a huge risk to the national security of the United States, our 
allies, and the stability of world markets.
  Communist China is simply stealing American jobs and technology and 
spying on our citizens.
  General Secretary of the Communist Party Xi is a dictator and a human 
rights violator who is denying basic rights to the people of Hong Kong, 
cracking down on dissidents, threatening Taiwan, and militarizing the 
South China Sea.
  Uighur prisoners in Communist China are being rounded up, 
blindfolded, shaved, and loaded onto trains to be taken to 
concentration camps simply because of their religion. You can't believe 
this is happening today in this world.
  Communist China's deceptions surrounding the coronavirus pandemic 
should be the last straw for every American. It doesn't matter to 
Communist China that their lies and misinformation killed hundreds of 
thousands of people around the world. Communist China is on a mission 
to be the dominant world power. Chairman Xi will stop at nothing to 
grow Communist China's influence. For Communist China and Chairman Xi, 
this great power conflict is a zero-sum game. In order for China to be 
stronger, America and all freedom-loving countries around the world 
must be weaker. We can't allow that to happen. It is time we finally 
stand up and address the new Cold War occurring between the United 
States and the Chinese Communist Party.

  For too long, Washington politicians have been more concerned with 
short-term political success than with the long-term threats to our way 
of life--but not anymore. It is time for action. We can no longer rely 
on countries like Communist China for our critical supply chain. We 
need to build up the national stockpile of PPE and our pharmaceutical 
industry with supplies from American-based producers. We can no longer 
accept Chinese technology that could be used to spy on us, and we are 
working to prohibit the Federal Government from purchasing drones from 
our adversaries.
  We can no longer allow Communist China to steal from us. We have to 
be aggressive in protecting American research and American innovation, 
including potentially lifesaving research into a coronavirus vaccine. 
We should do everything we can to stop buying products ``Made in 
China'' because, every time we do, we are putting another dollar into 
the pockets of those stealing our technology, denying their people 
basic human rights, and propping up dangerous dictators like Maduro in 
Venezuela.
  We have to hold Communist China accountable and financially liable 
for its lies that led to the coronavirus. It is responsible for the 
devastation. We have to stand up and say that it is wrong to allow 
Beijing to host the 2022 Olympics. That is wrong. The world community 
cannot condone or reward its despicable behavior and human rights 
violations.
  It is important to be clear-eyed. We have to see Communist China for 
what it is. We all must do our part to support our Nation and make it 
clear to Communist China that the people of the United States will not 
stand for its behavior.
  I will not stop fighting until our future and the futures of all of 
our children and our grandchildren are secure from this threat.
  I yield to my colleague from Texas
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in discussing 
the single greatest geopolitical threat facing the United States for 
the next century, and that is the rise of Communist China.
  We are, right now, months into a deadly global pandemic that has 
sickened over 14 million people worldwide and has taken the lives of 
over 600,000 people. Why are we in the midst of a global pandemic? It 
is because the Chinese Communist Party deliberately lied to the world. 
It covered up the outbreak and allowed it to spread. The coronavirus 
pandemic has thrown into high relief the fact that China is our most 
dangerous threat.
  For 8 years in the U.S. Senate, I have worked hard to lead the fight 
to address the threat of Chinese Communist power and aggression and 
hostility head-on, to make the U.S. economy as free and independent 
from China as possible, and to thwart the never-ending propaganda and 
censorship campaign from the Chinese Communists.
  Last week, the Chinese Communist Government made the decision to 
sanction me personally, so I am now--I awoke to discover--prohibited 
from traveling to Communist China. Somehow, I think I will overcome 
that great burden, and I will tell you I wear China's sanction as a 
badge of honor. There is a reason they are lashing out. There is a 
reason it has decided to direct personal sanctions on me--because they 
are scared; they are terrified. The Chinese Communists are murdering, 
lying, torturing tyrants.

[[Page S4379]]

  For a long time in Washington, there were politicians in both 
parties--Democrats and Republicans--who were apologists for China, who 
denied the threat was there, who insisted that the path forward was 
getting more and more and more in bed with the Chinese Communists. The 
most significant long-term foreign policy consequence of this global 
pandemic is that people's eyes are opening up on both sides of the 
aisle here in Washington and across the world. One need look no further 
than the United Kingdom's reversing its decision to allow Huawei to 
build its telecom infrastructure in order to understand how China's 
mendacity has been revealed to the world.
  So how do we hold China accountable? How do we deal with the Chinese 
Communist Party?
  First of all, we should sanction Chinese officials involved in the 
ongoing suppression of medical experts, of journalists, and of 
political dissidents, all of whom have been ``disappeared'' by the 
Chinese tyrants. I have introduced legislation to do just that. Over 
the past several years, I have introduced, roughly, a dozen separate 
pieces of legislation that have all focused on different aspects of 
addressing the China threat.
  Another aspect is Chinese propaganda--Chinese propaganda that is 
reflected here in the United States. Big Business, giant corporations, 
the media, Hollywood all are terrified to take on Communist China. All 
see the billions they can earn from access to the Chinese markets as 
being more important than free speech.
  With respect to Hollywood, sadly, too many movie producers here in 
the United States have been perfectly content to allow the Chinese 
Communists to censor American movies. For example, later this year, the 
sequel to ``Top Gun'' is scheduled to come out--``Top Gun,'' one of the 
greatest military recruiting films ever made. In the sequel, on the 
back of Maverick's bomber jacket, the flag of Taiwan has been removed 
and the flag of Japan, both of which the Chinese overlords deemed to be 
offensive, and our heroic First Amendment champions in Hollywood 
dutifully complied with censorship.
  By the way, it needn't just concern geopolitical affairs in Asia. 
With another Hollywood movie, ``Bohemian Rhapsody''--a fabulous biopic 
of Freddie Mercury, the lead singer for Queen--the Chinese censors 
decided it offended their sensibilities to have scenes in the movie 
that revealed that Freddie Mercury was homosexual. Now, I ask you to 
pause for a second and ask: How on Earth do you tell Freddie Mercury's 
life story without including the fact that he was gay? It was integral 
to who he was. Yet those in Hollywood, which on so many other issues 
are glad to be woke social justice warriors, dutifully complied when 
the Chinese censors said to take it out, and they deleted the scenes 
from ``Bohemian Rhapsody.''
  I have introduced legislation in this body called the SCRIPT Act that 
will impose consequences when American companies allow the Chinese 
Government to censor our films. The consequences are simple. We don't 
have the power as the government to impose direct negative 
consequences, but what we do have the power to do is to use the 
incentives we have; namely, lots of movies borrow Federal assets. When 
you go watch a movie and see a plane or a ship or a tank or when you go 
watch a movie on the border and you see DHS assets, all sorts of 
Federal agencies allow movies to use equipment that is the property of 
the Federal Government. The SCRIPT Act is very simple. It says, if you 
are going to allow the Chinese Communists to censor your movie, the 
Federal Government is not going to loan you our equipment and materiel. 
We are not going to facilitate making a movie if you are going to give 
the Chinese Communists the editing and censoring pen.

  Not only do the Chinese Communists engage in propaganda in Hollywood, 
but they also engage in espionage and propaganda on our university 
campuses--a very deliberate, systematic effort to steal and deceive. In 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, I was 
proud to secure a funding prohibition for the Department of Defense 
from funding universities where the money could go to a Confucius 
Institute. As a result of that bipartisan legislation, which earned 
support from Republicans and Democrats, 17 Confucius Institutes have 
been shut down.
  When it comes to our supply chain, we have seen, in recent months, 
the incredible foolishness of allowing the American supply chain to be 
dependent on China--medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, PPE. In the 
midst of this pandemic, one Chinese Government state-controlled 
newspaper explicitly threatened to cut off lifesaving pharmaceuticals 
to the United States of America as a tool of economic warfare. If it 
were to do that, that wouldn't just be economic warfare--that would be 
actual warfare. That is literally threatening the lives of millions of 
Americans.
  We need to break our supply chain dependence on China, especially 
concerning critical infrastructure, and I have introduced hosts of 
legislation designed to do so with respect to pharmaceuticals, with 
respect to critical minerals. We have to keep the American people's 
lives and safety not dependent upon the whims of Communist China.
  In my final point right now, in China today, there are, roughly, 1 
million Uighurs in concentration camps--an Orwellian-style, dystopian 
government, where the government has all power to monitor what you say, 
to monitor whom you talk to, to monitor your beliefs. I introduced 
legislation to impose sanctions on any American technology companies 
that facilitate the monitoring and oppression of the Chinese people. I 
am proud to say the Trump administration took major portions of that 
legislation I introduced and implemented them to increase the pressure 
to stop facilitating Chinese torture and oppression.
  The overwhelming challenge for this body and for this country for the 
next century going forward is how we will stand up to the threat of 
China. China is waging a 1,000-year war. For the sake not only of 
Americans but for the sake of the free world, America needs to win this 
contest.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I was thinking a bit earlier today 
about what we were doing at this time last year. We were busy hosting 
Tennessee Tuesdays and welcoming Tennesseans and families and children 
with such curiosity and bright eyes and lots of questions about our 
Nation's government, about these beautiful buildings in which we work 
every day, and about the job that we have in representing them. I like 
that curiosity, and I like that energy that, generally, is brought to 
our Chambers and to our work during the summertime. This year, things 
really are a little bit different. I think it is a very worthwhile 
exercise--and I appreciate that my colleagues are participating in this 
exercise--to remind ourselves why this year is different.
  The answer, of course, as to why is this year different is the 
Chinese Communist Party. It is the one that is to be held responsible, 
to be blamed for the sickness, the chaos, for this crisis that we have 
had, which is a health, food, and financial crisis all rolled into one. 
It has happened because of decisions that China made, decisions that 
were made by the Chinese Communist Party's leadership.
  There are some things that are the known knowns, if you will. They 
are the things that we know happened as you look back over what has 
happened with COVID-19.
  What we know is this: On December 31, 2019, government officials in 
Wuhan, China, confirmed they were monitoring the spread of a disease 
that looked a lot like pneumonia. They didn't know exactly what it was. 
It didn't have all the markers, but a lot. But on New Year's Eve, they 
let us know: Hey, we have a problem out here. Just days later, they 
confirmed it was caused by a novel virus that had infected dozens of 
people. We now know it was hundreds of people.
  It wasn't until January 23, however, that authorities shut off Wuhan 
from the rest of the country. By this time, the virus was spreading 
like wildfire. Let's pay close attention to what I just said. They shut 
off Hubei Province, they shut off Wuhan not from the rest of the world, 
not from other countries, but from the rest of China. Don't you dare go 
anywhere else in our country. This is contagious.

[[Page S4380]]

  Now, as if that 23-day gap wasn't bad enough, credible watchdog 
reports revealed that the CCP--Chinese Communist Party--lied--they lied 
to global health officials about the danger posed by the virus for not 
just a day or two while they figured it out but for 51 days before they 
sounded the alarm and said: Listen up. Pandemic. Pandemic. Fifty-one 
days. This deception allowed a regional outbreak to spread into a 
global pandemic that has so far killed more than 140,000 Americans.
  It would be easy to chalk all of this up to incompetence and 
overwhelmed bureaucrats, but every Member of this body knows that is 
not what happened. That is why, over the past few weeks, more and more 
of my colleagues here in the Senate have agreed to support legislation 
that will allow Americans to hold China accountable for the destruction 
caused by the pandemic.
  On Monday, Senator McSally introduced the Civil Justice for Victims 
of COVID Act--a bill that I am very pleased to support and to be a 
cosponsor. This bill contains elements of my Stop COVID Act, which I 
introduced earlier this year. It would strip Chinese officials of their 
sovereign immunity for reckless actions that caused the pandemic and 
would give our Federal courts the authority to hear claims that China 
has caused or contributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. This is not an 
unusual step. We did this after 9/11 for the 9/11 families. What we 
would do is give them the opportunity to go to court and make their 
case--hold China accountable.
  It is time for this body to reject the artificial backstops that some 
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use to protect China 
from criticism, and I encourage those colleagues to ask themselves: 
What are you afraid will happen if we hold China accountable for what 
they have done? What do you fear?
  We have known for years that Beijing uses every tool in its toolbox 
to spy on us. Look at what we have learned about Huawei. They embed the 
chips in the hardware. You do not know they are there until they 
activate. We know they steal our intellectual property. Look at what 
they have done to the music industry, to the entertainment industry, to 
publishers, and to automotive engineers. China--they can't innovate 
their way to success, so what do they do? They steal their way to 
success, and then they lie about it.
  China continues to cause chaos on the international stage. Look at 
their work pushing into the South China Sea. Look at what they have 
done to the freedom fighters in Hong Kong. Look at how they act and how 
they pressure and try to stifle Taiwan. This is standard operating 
procedure for the Chinese Communist Party.
  Now, because they chose to lie and not come forward, we have more 
than 140,000 Americans who are dead. Millions more have lost their 
jobs, and they have lost their sense of community. How much further are 
we willing to let this go? I will tell you this: As I, every single 
day, talk to Tennesseans about China and what has happened with China 
and how China has not been an honest broker, not only in this but for 
decades, Tennesseans have had enough.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, the world is watching and dealing with 
COVID-19--the economic effects and health effects. It has affected 
every single one of our families in some way.
  While the world is watching and we are dealing with all those issues 
here in the United States, we can't lose track of what is happening on 
the world stage because China is using this moment when the world is 
distracted to push its way into Hong Kong and to break its word.
  When we deal with China, we know what they have done, the predatory 
tactics they have taken either on their own people or on countries 
around the world.
  The United States of America--when we do foreign aid, we go help 
other countries gain more freedom, more security, more stability, and 
more economic growth. We don't ask anything in return. We engage with 
them to help them.
  China is working with developing countries around the world by moving 
into different countries and taking collateral of their ports, of their 
airports, and establishing military bases around the world when poorer 
countries default on the loans they give them. They are not helping 
other countries; they are taking over other countries.
  They are stepping into country after country and offering them great 
new technology from Huawei to help their cell phone systems. They are 
establishing security systems around their banks. But what they are 
really doing is monitoring their people and gathering data on people 
all around the world. The security systems aren't there to set up and 
prop up dictatorships in poor countries; they are there for the 
dictatorship of China to track what is going on there and any 
international development.
  We should be aware of what China is doing, and we should not ignore 
this moment for the free people of Hong Kong.
  Today, many Americans are aware of how China has handled the issue of 
protective equipment. The medical equipment that we desperately needed 
in March, April, May--much of it manufactured in China--we could not 
get because the Communist Government of China kept the materials from 
American companies that were manufacturing in China. The Chinese 
Communist Government wouldn't allow the exportation of that, and they 
just took that equipment over, putting all of the schedules behind. 
Suddenly, Americans woke up and understood that our supply chains are 
at risk. Our pharmaceutical supply chains are at risk, and our PPE 
supply chains are at risk.
  What many people don't know is that our rare earth minerals and 
critical minerals supply chain is at risk. Lots of folks really like 
the solar panels and electric car batteries. Well, great--except we are 
completely dependent on China for the rare earth minerals that are in 
those.
  If we don't develop our own sourcing for those rare earth minerals--
and we do have those same rare earth minerals here--if we don't develop 
our own supply chain, if we don't develop our own manufacturing for 
pharmaceuticals and for the precursors of pharmaceuticals, we will 
continue to be vulnerable to the Chinese Government, and at the moment 
the Communist government determines, they will take over that supply, 
and we will be at risk.
  For decades, the Confucius Institutes have thrived on college 
campuses, spreading a Communist philosophy all through our college 
campuses. It is now at a moment that college campuses and leadership in 
colleges are starting to wake up to say: Why are we allowing Communist 
indoctrination on our campuses?
  It is a bill that I have pushed, that I will continue to push to be 
able to wake up our universities, to say: Why are we allowing this on 
our campus?
  It is an issue that I have pushed for years, dealing with Chinese 
Communists spying on American technology, stealing technology, and also 
stealing our science and inventions.
  They come over with a grant from the United States and say they are 
going to send over researchers, when really what they are doing is 
harvesting the research and taking it back to China.
  They take materials, whether it be music or movies or any items of 
production, and all that manufacturing that comes to China, they then 
take that same technology, move it to a different factory, and 
literally compete against the first company, because to do business in 
China, you have to turn over all your intellectual property to the 
Communist government, which then takes it and uses it on their own.
  The Chinese Communist Government is not the ally of freedom for the 
world, and we should be aware of that. Certainly the people of Hong 
Kong are aware of that.
  In 1997, after 150 years as a British territory, Hong Kong became a 
part of China under the Joint Declaration. It was one country, two 
systems--that Hong Kong for 50 years would remain autonomous and free.
  Well, just over two decades later, the Chinese Government has broken 
its promise, and Hong Kong is no longer free. While the world is 
consumed with what is happening with COVID-19, the Communist government 
has moved into Hong Kong and has taken it over. They passed a law in 
Beijing that they

[[Page S4381]]

sent over and declared in Hong Kong that they can't have any of what 
they call subversion, organization or perpetuation of what they call 
terroristic activities, collusion with a foreign country or an external 
element, which I will explain later.
  This new security law literally was delivered to the people of Hong 
Kong at midnight, and it went into place immediately. Then the next 
step was that the Chinese Communist police--military law enforcement--
moved into Hong Kong to begin to implement this.
  Free speech immediately stopped. Those protesters who were out on the 
street just wishing to be able to vote and to speak their mind were 
immediately rounded up.
  Teachers and academics have been arrested or fired or threatened. 
Communist Chinese leaders have contacted them to reprimand them about 
teaching about human rights in their classrooms, remembering that in 
Hong Kong it was required--it was a required class in Hong Kong just 
weeks ago--to learn about human rights and freedom, and now the Chinese 
Government is removing those teachers and threatening any other teacher 
who teaches about human rights that they will be removed.
  Faith leaders have been squashed. You see, under this security law 
that has passed, you can't have any external element collusion. They 
define ``external element'' as any kind of worship of God as well that 
does not align with the Communist Government. So any faith-based group 
who is there in Hong Kong is immediately being squashed.
  The Muslim Uighurs are gathered up in Communist China and put in 
concentration camps to reeducate them on how to be more Chinese. Now 
the people of Hong Kong are experiencing that same type of oppression 
as the first step has stepped in to take away their right to free 
speech, their right to gather and protest, and now also their right to 
have freedom of faith. Leaders of the democracy movement have already 
been rounded up and arrested. This is something that we should not 
ignore. We have said as a world ``Never again,'' and we should engage.

  I know many people in my State say we should focus on COVID-19, and 
we should. There is much that needs to be done. We cannot take our eyes 
off of freedom around the world, as well, and the people of Hong Kong. 
As they lose their freedom, the world loses freedom, and China sees it 
can move into one more place one more time. Taiwan is next, and they 
will continue to move in this same way. We should stay engaged.
  There are multiple bills this body has already done on sanctions, and 
we should continue. We should continue to press in and speak out for 
those who cannot speak for themselves in Hong Kong. They are being 
isolated. Senator Tim Kaine and I just dropped a bill yesterday dealing 
with internet freedom for the people of Hong Kong, saying that the 
American Government should be engaged in trying to break through what 
is called the great firewall in China. We know they will extend this 
firewall into Hong Kong, as well, and will prevent the people from Hong 
Kong from access to social media, information with each other, or 
information from the outside world, just as they have with the people 
of China. But the people of Hong Kong have grown up and lived in 
freedom, and they know what it means to get outside information, and 
the Chinese Government is actively working to shut that down. We should 
actively work to push back on that to make sure the free people of Hong 
Kong continue to communicate with each other and with the outside 
world. We can stay engaged with that basic function of human rights. 
That is why Senator Kaine and I are so passionate about this.
  We should engage as a government to make sure that they can continue 
to have the free speech that we have. When anyone loses their human 
rights and dignities, the world loses human rights and dignities.
  Again, I am aware that there are many things that need to happen with 
COVID-19 right now, and we are actively working on those things as 
well, and we should. But we should not lose track of freedom. Freedom 
is our responsibility to model and to live and to help other free 
people to guard. Let's stand with the people of Hong Kong.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3627

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am glad to have the opportunity to talk 
for a bit on the floor of the U.S. Senate on U.S. policy toward China 
because there has been no better friend for Chinese interests likely in 
our lifetime than President Donald J. Trump.
  Articles suggest that when you survey Chinese Communist Party 
leaders, they are, to a person, rooting for the reelection of this 
President. I don't need to go through the litany of ways in which China 
has become more influential and more powerful all around the world 
because of this administration's policies, but at the top of that list 
is the abdication of the United States' traditional leadership role on 
human rights, which has allowed the Communist Party to march on the 
Uighurs and others. It is a failed trade policy that has allowed China 
to extend its influence into places like Africa and throughout the Silk 
Road. It is America's break with Europe that has shattered our ability 
to negotiate together the future rules of the economic order.
  But what China is really ecstatic about is this President's 
performance since March in the wake of a virus that now shows the 
United States as having 25 percent of the world's COVID cases while 
having only 4 percent of the world's population.
  My friend Senator Blackburn recited the early moments of this virus 
outbreak in China, and she is right that China was nontransparent and 
unhelpful in those early days. But do you know who the greatest 
cheerleader for China was in the first 2 to 3 months of COVID-19's 
outbreak there? President Donald Trump. On 45 occasions he went on 
social media or gave statements to the press in which he lauded China's 
response. He talked about how transparent they were and how they were 
doing a great job. The world community couldn't put pressure on China 
to open up with respect to what they knew about the virus in large part 
because the leader of the Nation's most powerful country was doing the 
bidding of the Chinese Government.
  The second thing that this President has done that makes China very, 
very pleased is to essentially make the argument for the Chinese that 
the autocratic model that they are perfecting is the best method by 
which to organize society around the world, because they say: Listen, 
we got this virus under control in a matter of months, and the world's 
greatest democracy is still dealing with an epidemic that looks to be 
raging newly out of control. So as we engage in this broad fight 
between models of governance, our inability--this administration's 
inability--to get this virus under control is maybe the greatest gift 
that this President has given to China.
  Here is what makes it so unconscionable: We know that democracy is 
inefficient. We know that capital markets can sometimes be inefficient 
when pressed up against the wall by emergencies. So we built into the 
statutes of the United States emergency powers to give to this 
President--to any President--so that when they are faced with an 
emergency, they can cure some of the inefficiencies of democracy.
  We are on the floor today--Senators Baldwin, Stabenow, Brown, and I--
to talk about one particular power this President has. It is an act 
called the Defense Production Act, and it allows the President during 
moments of emergency to commandeer parts of the manufacturing supply 
chain in this country to make sure we are making everything we need in 
order to repel a foreign invader. Sometimes that may be an army, but in 
this case it is a pathogen.
  What we have known from the very beginning is that there was no way 
for this country to have enough personal protective equipment--masks, 
face shields, gowns, and gloves--and there was no way for this country 
to be able to have enough tests to know who has it so that we can track 
it and get rid of it without the Federal Government stepping up and 
utilizing the Defense Production Act.
  Twenty percent of nursing homes today have less than a week's supply 
of PPE.
  Doctors at one hospital in Houston, where the outbreak is raging out 
of control, are being told to wear their N95 masks for 15 days in a row 
when it is recommended for a single use.

[[Page S4382]]

  The national strategic stockpile once had 82 million gloves. Today 
they have less than 1 million.
  Guess what. It is going to get worse. More people need to be tested. 
Schools are about to reopen. The superintendent of the 100,000-student 
Jefferson County school district in Louisville, KY, says that he needs 
$10 million to order face masks alone. It is going to cost schools 
across this country $25 billion to purchase medical supplies, and these 
medical supplies are going up in price because the supply is so low. We 
have a solution: the Defense Production Act.
  We also don't have enough tests. It now takes 7 to 10 to 14 days to 
get a test back. In Connecticut, it used to take just 1 day. You can't 
beat this virus if you don't get results for 7 to 10 days. That person 
who gets tested goes out and spreads it during that time.
  James Davis from Quest Diagnostics said:

       We would double our capacity tomorrow . . . but it's not 
     the labs that are the bottleneck. [It] is our ability to get 
     physical machines and . . . our ability to feed those 
     machines with chemical reagents.

  That is equipment that could be produced in the United States if the 
President took control of the manufacturing supply chain--not forever, 
but to the extent of this crisis.
  So the Medical Supply Transparency and Delivery Act, which Senator 
Baldwin and my colleagues will talk more about, essentially picks up 
the ball the President has dropped and commands the President to 
operationalize the Defense Production Act and put somebody in charge of 
its effectuation to make sure we are producing in this country all of 
the medical equipment--the masks, the gloves, the testing reagents, the 
cartridges--that it is possible to produce in this Nation
  The level of gleeful, willing, knowing, purposeful incompetence from 
this administration is absolutely stunning, and no one should normalize 
an administration that has the power to save lives and refuses to 
operationalize it.
  Why won't this administration take control of the supply chain? Why 
are they willing to let people die? States can't run the supply chain 
by themselves. It is a national and international supply chain. 
Hospitals can't create their own supply chain. They need to be focused 
on saving lives, not being miniprocurement organizations.
  We know that democracies and capitalist economies are by nature and 
design often inefficient when faced with these urgent crises. That is 
why we give Presidents these enormous but temporary powers to smooth 
out the inefficiencies of a multibranch, multijurisdictional democracy.
  When it comes to calling in the Federal troops to beat the hell out 
of protesters, this President seems perfectly willing to exercise his 
powers as Commander in Chief, but when it comes to making sure that my 
kids' teachers or my local doctor has a mask this fall, this President 
is all of a sudden impotent. It falls to us, Members of the U.S. 
Congress, to stand up and pass legislation, the Medical Supply 
Transparency and Delivery Act, to make sure--to make sure--that we are 
using the extent of the statutes provided to this government and this 
President to make sure that people are safe and make sure people are 
tested in the middle of an ongoing epidemic.
  I am glad to be joined on the floor today by a number of my 
colleagues to talk about the need to pass this legislation. We are 
going to offer a unanimous consent request. Senator Baldwin will do 
that. I have been very pleased to be a partner with her in developing 
this legislation to require the operationalization of the DPA, but 
before she speaks, let me turn it over to my colleague and our caucus's 
leader on issues of healthcare, Senator Stabenow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, it is wonderful to be here with 
my great friends from Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Ohio. This is such an 
important discussion we are having today and such an important bill 
that needs to be passed.
  Let me start again by underscoring something that Senator Murphy 
said, because despite what happened in the beginning as it relates to 
China and certainly over the years, I have not been shy to address 
concerns related to stealing our intellectual property rights or other 
issues related to China. The reality is, despite whatever the 
smokescreens are about China, you can't say that they are the reason 
that with 4 percent of the population, we have 25 percent of the cases 
of COVID-19 and 25 percent of the deaths in the world. There is much 
more to it, and, unfortunately, it lands right in this country with the 
lack of national leadership that has been completely AWOL when it comes 
to the kind of national strategy we need to get our people the 
equipment, the support they need, the testing they need, and to have a 
strategy to safely reopen the economy and our schools while, at the 
same time, putting the health and safety and lives of Americans first 
by addressing the pandemic.
  So I rise today to urge the Senate to take up and immediately pass 
the Medical Supply Transparency and Delivery Act. I want to thank 
Senators Baldwin, Murphy, and Brown for introducing this important 
legislation. I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill.
  As all of you know, throughout history--and I love history--perhaps 
no State was as crucial to our Nation's victory in World War II as was 
Michigan. My colleagues may debate that, but I have the mic, so I will 
talk about Michigan.
  The truth is that more than half of Michigan men and women proudly 
served in uniform, including my own dad. Back home, the people of our 
State were hard at work producing the bombers, the tanks, the trucks, 
the helmets, and the guns needed to win the war. In fact, Michigan was 
called at that time ``the arsenal of democracy.'' We make things, and 
during World War II, we were making the things that were needed to win 
the war--the arsenal of democracy. Both at home and abroad, victory in 
many ways depended on the people of my State.
  For the past 6 months, our Nation has been fighting a different kind 
of war, a raging health pandemic, taking over 141,000 American lives so 
far. Unfortunately, this time our national generals appear to be 
missing in action. How is it possible that 6 months after the first 
case of COVID-19 on January 20, our healthcare workers still are 
struggling to get the personal protective gear they need to treat 
patients while keeping themselves safe? How can that be?
  How is it possible that 6 months after the first case of COVID-19 was 
detected in the United States, people are still struggling to get 
tested? Well, I will tell you how. It is because of the complete lack 
of Federal leadership coming from this White House that we have seen, 
since day one, in this crisis.
  None of us want it to be this way. We all live here. Our families are 
here. We are desperately concerned about our families, our friends, and 
people in our States. We want this White House to be successful in 
fighting the pandemic. We all need to be successful in fighting this 
pandemic.
  But the reality is that the administration could have immediately 
used the Defense Production Act to ensure that we have quality 
protective equipment and testing supplies in the right place at the 
right time. It could have happened immediately. Instead, we have the 
administration providing example after example of telling the 
Governors: OK, you do it. We don't want to do it. You do it. We will be 
right behind you.
  Then Governors turn around, and nobody is there.
  They don't want to support the Governors and local communities now 
that we were once required to step up. But you go ahead. Or they are 
putting together shady contracts--no-bid contracts--one after the 
other.
  One I will mention to you is called Fillakit, which was a $10 million 
no-bid contract to produce testing supplies by somebody who already had 
had problems in the past and who was given a no-bid contract after 
setting up a new company. We heard this over and over. And ProPublica 
reported that the testing tubes Fillakit produced were, in fact, 
repurposed miniature plastic soda bottles and described the packaging 
process as unmasked employees using ``snow shovels'' and dumping them 
into plastic bins before squirting saline into them all in open air. 
Well, Michigan received some of those so-called testing supplies, and 
needless to say, they were not useable.

[[Page S4383]]

  Meanwhile, Governors, hospitals, and nursing homes have spent time, 
energy, and money bidding against one another and being pitted against 
one another for lifesaving PPE and testing supplies. This is no way to 
fight a pandemic. This is no way to fight a war, and, certainly, no way 
to win a war.
  In Michigan, after the CARES Act passed, going back to the State, 
working with our State Governor and her team and our delegation, I, 
literally, was in a situation of reaching out--because of my work in 
healthcare--to people in the medical supply business, and we got some 
of the first masks because I knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy 
in China. That was how we got the masks--no national supply chain.
  Masks were coming in. Fifty-cent masks were being bumped up to $5, 
$6, $7 apiece--no accountability, nobody worrying about the United 
States and whether we could get the best deal and whether our hospitals 
were able to get what they needed. Frankly, it was chaos--complete 
chaos. Again, that is no way to fight a pandemic, and it is certainly 
no way to fight a war.
  During World War II, Michigan didn't decide to become the arsenal of 
democracy on its own. The Federal Government saw a need and called on 
Michigan companies and workers to fill it, and we did. It is the same 
thing this administration should be doing right now, today--today--to 
produce the PPE and testing supplies we need to end this pandemic. 
Instead, doctors and nurses are wearing the same masks for a week or 
more. People are waiting more than 10 days for test results, and more 
than 141,000 Americans, so far, have died, including more than 6,100 in 
Michigan.
  It is time to pass this important bill. It is past time. It is time 
to put our great American companies to work producing the supplies we 
need. It is time to win this war. We have done big things before, and 
we can do it again. I join with my colleagues in urging that this bill 
be taken up immediately.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank Senators Murphy and Stabenow and 
Senator Baldwin's terrific leadership on this. I echo Senator Murphy's 
earlier comments about China.
  I see on the other side of the aisle Senators and President Trump. It 
is campaign season. So it is time to bash China, even though they have 
been in the pockets of China.
  I was in the other body when corporate interests came and lobbied the 
House of Representatives and lobbied the Senate asking for China to get 
all of these trade breaks and tax breaks so that American companies 
could shut down production in Milwaukee or in Cleveland and move 
overseas to China and get all kinds of tax breaks. And then my 
Republican colleagues were also pro-China because they wanted these 
American corporations and their contributors, starting with Senator 
McConnell down the hall, to get all of these advantages for China.
  Now, if you are thinking about running for President of the United 
States in 2024 as a Republican, you bash China. If you are in a tough 
reelection right now for the Senate, you bash China. If you are a House 
Member and afraid of being defeated, you bash China. If you want to 
help the cause for Donald Trump, you bash China. It doesn't matter that 
President Trump has been the best friend of China. It doesn't matter 
the Republican leadership has been in the pocket of Chinese Communist 
interests because of their support for American corporations. It is 
just good politics to bash China. So we know that, and Senator Murphy 
touched on that.


                                S. 4049

  Mr. President, I want to say a few words first about Agent Orange and 
thank Senator Tester for his work on behalf of the tens of thousands of 
Vietnam vets who suffered because of exposure to Agent Orange.
  We all know what the issue is. The National Academy of Sciences has 
recognized the four illnesses that are suggestive or where there is 
sufficient evidence associated with Agent Orange. For years, we have 
known that. The VA has added illnesses in categories to the list of 
presumptive medical conditions associated with Agent Orange. They have 
resisted this.
  Time is running out for these veterans. We did this to them. The 
American Government decided to spray Agent Orange. We knew it was 
harmful. We definitely know it is harmful now. If you were exposed to 
poison while serving our country, you deserve the benefits you earned, 
period.
  For 3 years, in the Veterans' Affairs Committee--I sat in the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee--I begged the Veterans' Administration to 
recognize that these three illnesses are caused by Agent Orange and 
they should get Veterans' Administration benefits. I begged the 
Veterans' Administration, and no answers. I begged the President of the 
United States, and President Trump said he is a friend of veterans, but 
he couldn't be bothered to add these three illnesses on the list. So 
these veterans, individually, have to get down on their knees--
figuratively, if not literally--and beg the VA for benefits when it 
ought to be automatic. That is what Senator Tester's amendment does 
today. It makes it automatic.
  Instead, the White House said no and the Veterans' Administration 
said no, but because of the work of Senator Tester today, my colleagues 
are finally--it doesn't happen often around here. My Republican 
colleagues actually stood up to the President of the United States and 
said: No, Mr. President, you are wrong on the VA about covering these 
illnesses for Vietnam vets. And, finally, this Congress did the right 
thing. I thank Senator Tester for that work.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3627

  Mr. President, we know a lot of things. We know 144,000 Americans are 
dead. We have grown numb to these numbers. We can't forget who they 
are. They are our friends, our sisters, our brothers, our parents, and 
our neighbors.
  As has been said, we are 4 to 5 percent of the world's population. We 
have accounted for almost 30 percent of the deaths in the entire world. 
That is not because we don't have skilled doctors. It is not because we 
don't have smart scientists. It is not because we don't work hard. It 
is because of leadership.
  We know this President and the majority leader down the hall, who 
does the bidding every single day of this President, had chance after 
chance to get ahead of this virus. President Trump failed and Senator 
McConnell failed. Now they have stopped even pretending to try
  The President demands that schools reopen--no plan to protect 
teachers and students. He demands businesses open up--no plan to 
protect workers and consumers. The American people have done their part 
and made incredible sacrifices. Essentially, they bought President 
Trump time in March, April, May, and June, and he wasted it.
  This spring, people stayed home. They worked hard to flatten the 
curve. Members of both parties--both parties--begged him to use the 
Defense Production Act to scale up the production of medical supplies, 
including testing supplies, and coordinate their deployment. All the 
way back in March, we knew we faced shortfalls in N95 masks, gowns, and 
the materials we needed, most importantly, for test production, like 
cotton swabs. I immediately convened Ohio manufacturers back in March. 
I know Senator Baldwin did the same thing in her State. I asked them 
what support they needed. I released a plan and sent a letter to the 
White House outlining Executive actions the President could take 
immediately. This was March. Since then--April, May, June, July--and 
essentially nothing happened. The Federal Government can acquire the 
resources our country needs and send them when they are needed most.
  Senator Crapo, a Republican from Idaho, and I worked together to 
include provisions in the CARES Act ensuring the President has the 
ability to use DPA authority he already has without delay. We worked 
with our colleagues in the Appropriations Committee to include $1 
billion in new DPA funding. Yet hundreds of millions of dollars just 
sit around waiting to be used.
  Our States and our healthcare workers continue to face supply 
shortages. What exactly is the President waiting for? Imagine if he had 
used that DPA money and DPA authority in the spring and said we need to 
be producing a million tests a week by the end of summer, or imagine if 
we said our goal

[[Page S4384]]

is to be ready to open schools in the fall and I am calling on American 
businesses and American workers to manufacture the tests we need to do 
it? Look around the world. Other countries figured this out. We are 
being left behind. It is time for us to step up. If the President will 
not lead, we must. If the President will not use DPA on its own, 
Congress must use its authority to force him to.
  That is why it is so disappointing to see my Republican colleagues 
objecting to Senator Baldwin's bill. But, of course, they are objecting 
because they are doing the bidding of President Trump, and they want to 
blame China for everything, instead of take any responsibility 
themselves. But objecting to Senator Baldwin's bill, which would force 
the President to actually do his job and coordinate a national response 
to a national crisis--that is the answer.
  The American people should not have to fend for themselves again and 
again and again in the middle of a pandemic.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, President Trump's response to this 
pandemic has been a failure of leadership. So we are here today to 
provide leadership in the Senate to do what the Trump administration 
has failed to do.
  In April, with my good friend Senator Murphy from Connecticut, the 
two of us introduced legislation called the Medical Supply Transparency 
and Delivery Act. That act would force President Trump to take action 
and scale up American production of things like test kits, swabs, 
reagents, personal protective equipment, and the medical equipment 
needed at the local level to address the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in 
our country.
  Three months later, States still do not have the supplies they need. 
Now more than 3.8 million Americans have been infected with the 
coronavirus, and, tragically, over 141,000 people have died in our 
country. For 3 months, our legislation has been in the majority 
leader's legislative graveyard.
  Since this public health crisis started, the Trump administration has 
had no national testing plan, and they have never had a plan to provide 
States with the testing supplies they need to combat this pandemic. As 
a matter of fact, last month, the President said we needed to slow down 
testing, and, this weekend, as President Trump once again said the 
coronavirus would disappear, there were reports that the White House is 
trying to block Federal funding for States to conduct testing and 
contact tracing.
  President Trump has not only abandoned each and every one of our 
States, he has also turned his back on frontline healthcare workers, 
who continue to face shortages of personal protective equipment, 
including gloves, gowns, face shields, and masks.
  The Trump administration has created absolute chaos in the medical 
supply chain, leaving healthcare workers at hospitals and long-term 
care facilities at the forefront of this crisis to fend for themselves, 
rationing the scarce personal protective equipment that has been 
provided to them. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago, Vice President 
Mike Pence, who was put in charge of our pandemic response, said the 
administration will be issuing guidance encouraging healthcare workers 
to reuse personal protective equipment. This is the same Vice President 
who declared that the United States would ``have this coronavirus 
pandemic behind us'' by Memorial Day weekend. He was tragically wrong, 
and this White House continues to play catchup on a pandemic and a 
virus that is spreading faster than ever.
  The person whom President Trump put in charge of our medical supply 
chain was his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Jared Kushner predicted in 
April that by June we would be back to normal and that in July we would 
be ``rocking again.'' It is July. It is July, and this is where we are.
  Last Thursday, America had its highest number of new coronavirus 
cases in 1 day. And in my home State of Wisconsin, we had our highest 
case count ever yesterday--yesterday--and we have many hospitals across 
my State with less than a week's supply of face shields, goggles, 
gowns, paper medical masks, and N95 masks.
  This public health crisis has not disappeared. We are not back to 
normal, and we are not ``rocking again.''
  The fact is, President Trump has failed to lead, and this White House 
has taken us in a wrong direction in our fight against this pandemic. 
New coronavirus cases are rising in the States that we work for, which 
means we need more testing supplies, more testing, and more personal 
protective equipment for our workers.
  The question this Senate needs to answer is whether we are going to 
let this President continue to take our country in the wrong direction, 
or are we going to lead and do what we all know needs to be done?
  Not one of my Senate colleagues can make an honest case that their 
State has everything it needs to fight this pandemic.
  In Wisconsin, we have been shortchanged by this administration. They 
have failed to provide adequate supplies for our State's clinical and 
private labs, paralyzing our ability to expand testing to the levels we 
need. In some cases, what we have received from the Trump 
administration were unsuitable and unusable testing supplies--foam 
applicators that cannot be used for swabs and saline tubes that were 
too short to transport swabs used in the majority of COVID-19 tests.
  In addition, the majority of labs conducting COVID-19 tests in 
Wisconsin are clinical or private labs. These labs cannot access 
resources from the administration and are essentially being told to 
``figure it out.'' Over 80 Wisconsin labs that are currently performing 
tests do not have access to a consistent supply of reagent.
  We are not alone. States across the country have been abandoned by 
the Trump administration. They have been forced to go this alone, while 
President Trump has tried to pass off responsibility for his own 
failures.
  Every single one of us knows that our States need more resources and 
supplies so we can ramp up testing, identify those who are infected, 
isolate positive cases, and safely trace all contacts so that the 
spread of this virus can finally be contained. We all know that 
President Trump's broken supply chain has been a failure, and my 
legislation with Senator Murphy, supported by 46 Democrats, will help 
fix it.
  In order to put people back to work and safely reopen businesses and 
schools, we need both a national testing plan and the supplies to 
implement it. This is true in Wisconsin and every other State in our 
Nation.
  Our legislation will help respond to this public health crisis and 
prepare for the future by mobilizing a Federal response to increase our 
national production of the testing and medical supplies we need at the 
State and local level. Specifically, the bill will provide critical 
oversight of the distribution of medical supplies and put an expert in 
charge to oversee COVID-19 equipment production and delivery so we know 
we are putting science and facts over politics and private distributor 
profits when it comes to responding to this pandemic.
  Finally, our legislation unlocks the full authority and power of the 
Defense Production Act so that we can produce and deliver tests, 
testing supplies, personal protective equipment, and medical equipment 
that we need to take on this pandemic, treat patients, protect workers, 
open businesses and schools, and save lives.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle have a choice: They can 
continue to ignore President Trump's failure to respond to this public 
health crisis, knowing full well that until we confront it in the bold 
and effective way that we should, we will not solve our economic 
crisis, or they can choose to liberate themselves from this failure and 
support a solution that will serve the people who sent us here to work 
for them.
  If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe, as this Vice 
President does, that this pandemic is behind us, then object. If my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe, as Jared Kushner 
does, that we are rocking again in July, then object. If my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle believe, as President Trump does, that 
the coronavirus will just magically disappear, well, then, object.
  If you oppose the failures of this President and this administration 
in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, then I ask for your vote to 
pass the Medical Supply Transparency and Delivery Act today.

[[Page S4385]]

  So I ask unanimous consent that the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged and the Senate proceed to 
the immediate consideration of S. 3627, the Medical Supply Transparency 
and Delivery Act. I further ask that the bill be considered read a 
third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say 
first that I appreciate my colleague from Wisconsin's work on this 
issue. It is an important issue. It is one that our committee has been 
working diligently on.
  Since the beginning of the COVID crisis, we have held five hearings 
and a roundtable on exactly this issue--exploring and doing oversight 
on the national stockpile and its supply chain vulnerability. Just 
today, we marked up five pieces of legislation very similar to what my 
colleague from Wisconsin is introducing here and trying to pass by 
unanimous consent. The five pieces are the Federal Emergency Pandemic 
Response Act, Securing Healthcare Response and Equipment Act, National 
Response Framework Improvement Act, National Infrastructure Simulation 
and Analysis Center Pandemic Modeling Act, and finally--this one 
closest to my colleague's bill--the PPE Supply Chain Transparency Act, 
which is actually the piece of legislation we have had the most 
discussion on--two amendments, including a second-degree amendment to 
one amendment--before passing it unanimously. So our committee has done 
a lot of work.
  My concern about what my colleague is doing here--trying to pass this 
by unanimous consent--is by and large bypassing the committee process. 
It is true her staff reached out to my staff a couple of weeks ago. We 
asked, have you vetted it through the Department? Apparently, she has 
begun that process, but this piece of legislation has not been properly 
vetted. It has not gone through the proper and full committee process.
  Again, without expressing an opinion on a piece of legislation but 
also acknowledging the fact that our committee has done a lot of work--
passed five pieces of legislation on a nonpartisan basis today because 
we are concerned about this as well--I have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. I am, of course, very disappointed that we cannot move 
this forward.
  I want to respond to a couple of the comments made by my colleagues 
from the State of Wisconsin, the chairman of the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee.
  It is July. It is July, and cases are rising. Action was not taken in 
February, March, April, May, June, or so far in this month of July. We 
had more than fair warning that we had shortages of masks and gloves 
and gowns and face shields and testing swabs and testing media and 
reagents, and yet it is July.
  As I said earlier, yesterday Wisconsin announced the most cases 
positive for coronavirus in a single day that we have seen since the 
pandemic began.
  As we strive to reopen our economy, the President exhorts all schools 
to hold 5-day-a-week, in-person classes.
  We know that the demand for testing and the demand for masks will 
only increase exponentially--the need to keep workers safe as they 
return to work and the need to keep customers safe as they enter and 
engage in commerce. To say that this needed to happen back in February 
is an understatement.
  I am pleased that my colleague has held hearings, but this bill was 
filed in April when it became apparent that the President was not going 
to act. This bill has been available for committee review since April.
  The House passed many elements of the Medical Supply Transparency and 
Delivery Act in their Heroes Act, which they passed 2 months ago. I 
just ask, where would we be today had this been put into law?
  There has been time to review. There has been time to study. But it 
is past time to pass the Medical Supply Transparency and Delivery Act. 
I hope we can create another opportunity for the Senate to act on this 
in the days to come because it is so overdue.
  I want to again thank my colleagues who joined me on the floor this 
afternoon--my coauthor, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut; my 
colleague from Michigan, Debbie Stabenow; and my colleague from Ohio, 
Senator Sherrod Brown; and the 45 other Members of the U.S. Senate who 
have joined me in sponsoring this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues, Senators 
Baldwin and Murphy, for their urgent words on this most important 
issue. I am proud to join them as we seek passage to pass legislation 
to finally require the President to invoke the full authority of the 
DPA, the Defense Production Act, so that the Federal Government can 
more speedily get testing supplies and PPE to the parts of our country 
struggling under the weight of the pandemic.
  Make no mistake, medical professionals and frontline workers fighting 
this virus still--still--do not have the protective equipment and the 
testing supplies they need because the Trump administration failed to 
fully invoke the DPA earlier this year. This is a crisis of President 
Trump's making.
  As we speak, COVID-19 continues to surge across the country. As cases 
keep growing, our testing supplies and our PPE, already in short 
supply, are reaching critical levels. From Seattle to Miami, people are 
waiting in line for hours to get tested, and their results might take 
days, if not more, to come back. In many places we are missing basic 
supplies--swabs, gloves. In certain hospitals it has been reported 
doctors and nurses are being told to reuse their N95 masks as many as 
15--15--times.
  It has been 6 months since we have been fighting this virus. How is 
this still happening? The problem should have been solved months ago, 
but the President has been derelict in his duty. His administration has 
been a total failure when it comes to testing and PPE.
  Instead of fully invoking the DPA and ramping up the production of 
critical supplies early on, President Trump has left doctors, nurses, 
and medical staff fighting this disease with one hand tied behind their 
back. He has failed to keep us and those working on the frontline safe.
  This bill, however, would finally--finally--force the President to do 
what he should have done ages ago. We have been talking about the DPA 
since way back in April. I called the President in April, got him on 
the phone, urged him to invoke it. He told me he would and then 
contradicted himself a few hours later. How typical, but how 
devastating for the American people. Then he quickly lost interest--
again, typical of this President, whose attention span is much too 
short for the big fight that we have with COVID.
  So what we say is the President's approach to the pandemic was--
typically here--no followthrough, no strategy, no comprehension of the 
problem. The President's mind-boggling refusal to invoke the DPA 
shouldn't be piled on top of the challenges our medical workers and 
citizens already face.
  I am sorry we didn't pass this legislation. I hope we can do it soon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                        Remembering   John Lewis

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, before I begin, I would like to take a 
moment to honor Congressman John Lewis, who died on Friday. A leader of 
the civil rights movement, he was one of the 13 original Freedom Riders 
and an organizer of the 1963 March on Washington. He was a man of 
conscience, conviction, and supreme courage.
  ``When you see something that is not right, not fair, not just, you 
have to speak up. You have to do something,'' he would say.
  John Lewis did something. Confronted by the great sin of segregation, 
John Lewis put himself front and center in the fight. He organized sit-
ins. He led demonstrations. He marched for

[[Page S4386]]

freedom. And he paid for his convictions with his blood. A man who 
espoused nonviolence, he suffered incredible brutality at the hands of 
both police officers and civilian mobs. He was attacked and beaten an 
untold number of times
  During a march in Selma, AL--on a day that lives in infamy--a police 
officer fractured John Lewis's skull, leaving him with a scar that he 
carried to the end of his life. Yet John Lewis was unbowed. No matter 
how many times he was attacked or what he suffered, he got up again and 
rejoined the fight.
  His death is a great loss, but John Lewis will live on in the annals 
of American heroes. May we all have his courage in fighting for the 
right.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. President, so far, Congress has provided $2.4 trillion to fight 
the coronavirus. Over the past couple of months here in the Senate, we 
have been closely tracking the implementation of this money and working 
with the administration on disbursement.
  In June alone, we held 30 hearings in the Senate on COVID-related 
issues. All of this has helped us identify the priorities that need to 
shape our next bill, which we are hoping to pass in the next couple of 
weeks. Those priorities are kids, jobs, and healthcare.
  First, kids: Getting kids back in school safely needs to be a 
priority. Being able to attend school in person is important for 
students' academic development and for their social and emotional well-
being.
  The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated: ``All policy 
considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of 
having students physically present in school.''
  Now, not every school may be able to fully reopen this fall, but we 
need to make sure that those schools that can reopen have the resources 
they need to reopen safely. That is why the legislation the Republicans 
are drafting here in the Senate would provide more than $100 billion to 
help schools ensure they have what they need to safely welcome students 
back to class.
  While our first priority in getting kids back to school is ensuring 
their academic and social well-being, getting students back in school 
is also important for families' economic health. There are a lot of 
parents in this country who can't afford to have one parent stay home 
to homeschool. We need to ensure that those parents have access to 
schools and childcare wherever possible so that they can keep or return 
to their jobs.
  Enabling Americans to return to work is key to our economic recovery. 
Currently, there are more than 17 million unemployed Americans. While 
this is a significant improvement from where we were 2 months ago, that 
number is still much too high, and we have to do everything we can to 
get these Americans back on the job and receiving a regular paycheck.
  That is why the legislation we are drafting will provide incentives 
for businesses to hire and to retain workers. It will provide a 
refundable tax credit for Main Street businesses for the protective 
equipment and cleaning supplies that they need to keep their employees 
and customers safe and to encourage Americans to return to their 
businesses. It will provide another round of assistance to small 
businesses, with a focus on those that have been hit the hardest by the 
pandemic.
  We also expect to issue another round of direct payments to hard-
working Americans to help them get back on their feet and to stimulate 
the economy.
  The third bucket of our coronavirus response is, of course, 
healthcare. We have to keep ensuring our healthcare professionals have 
the resources needed to treat patients, develop new treatments, and to 
find a vaccine to tame this virus once and for all.
  The coronavirus legislation that we are drafting will address all 
three of those priorities.
  Our legislation will also include another important priority that 
will protect jobs, schools, businesses, and healthcare workers, and 
that is liability protections. No matter how many precautions schools 
and businesses take, there is no way for them to completely eliminate 
all risk of employees, students, or customers contracting the virus, 
but an army of trial lawyers is waiting to levy lawsuits against even 
the most careful schools and businesses.
  There is absolutely no question that schools and businesses should be 
liable for gross negligence or for intentional misconduct, but 
businesses and schools that are taking every reasonable precaution to 
protect employees and students and customers should not have to worry 
about facing lawsuits for virus transmission that they could not have 
prevented.
  Healthcare workers giving their all on the frontlines to treat 
coronavirus patients should not have to worry that their efforts will 
be rewarded with lawsuits.
  I would like to think that we can put a bipartisan bill together and 
get it to the President's desk in the next couple of weeks. Republicans 
are ready and willing to work with Democrats to get this done. We will 
introduce our draft shortly and be ready to negotiate with Democrats to 
arrive at a final bill, the same process that we followed with the 
CARES Act, our largest coronavirus relief bill to date.
  This will work only if Democrats are willing to come to the table and 
negotiate a reasonable bill. My Democratic colleagues sometimes behave 
as if government money is drawn from a magical pot of gold that will 
never run out, but it is not. It is not.
  Every dollar of the coronavirus funding we provided so far has been 
borrowed money, and every dollar we appropriate in the phase 4 bill we 
are drafting will likely be borrowed money as well.
  It can be argued that it is money we need to borrow, but we need to 
remember that it is borrowed money and that the bill for that money 
will eventually come due. The more we drive up our debt, the greater 
the threat to the health of our economy, not to mention to the economic 
future of today's younger workers. We have an obligation to them to 
limit our borrowing to what is absolutely necessary to fight the virus.
  The Democratic leader has come down to the floor the past couple of 
days and suggested that the Heroes Act--a $3 trillion coronavirus bill 
the House passed is--``a good product to start with'' when it comes to 
a phase 4 coronavirus relief bill.
  That is ludicrous. The bill the Democratic leader is promoting--the 
bill he thinks is a good starting point for coronavirus legislation--is 
a bill that mentions cannabis--cannabis more often than it mentions the 
word ``jobs.''
  Let me just repeat that. The bill the Democratic leader thinks is a 
good starting point for coronavirus relief legislation mentions the 
word ``cannabis'' more often than it mentions the word ``job.''
  While the Democratic leader is certainly welcome to disagree with me, 
I don't think diversity studies in the cannabis industry have a major 
role to play in defeating this virus or getting Americans back to work, 
nor does federalizing election law--another priority the Democrats 
included in their bill.
  Despite its $3 trillion pricetag, the bill the Democratic leader is 
endorsing fails to meet one of the most basic requirements of any 
coronavirus relief bill, and that is providing a meaningful plan for 
getting Americans back to work. It is disappointing to hear the 
Democratic leader promoting such an unserious piece of legislation at a 
time that we should be devoting all of our efforts to getting a 
bipartisan bill to the President.
  I hope my other Democratic colleagues in the Senate are ready to look 
beyond partisan wish lists and focus on negotiating a relief package 
that addresses the real priorities we are facing: helping kids and 
parents, getting Americans back to work, and providing the healthcare 
resources needed to fight this virus.
  Republicans are ready to come to the table, and I urge Democrats to 
join us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The Senator from Illinois


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4243

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I am expecting the Senator from Utah to 
come to the floor momentarily to resume debate over an issue which was 
raised yesterday and suspended to move to a vote that had been 
previously scheduled.
  Since this item, this issue, we are discussing is of such importance 
to so many individuals in our country

[[Page S4387]]

today--and many of them are following this carefully and closely--I 
wanted to make sure we returned to it today to at least consider one 
aspect of the debate.
  Yesterday, when I made a unanimous consent request, Senator Lee said 
he had not had time to look at my proposal. That is why I waited until 
today to come back, so that he would have that opportunity.
  Yesterday, I came to the floor to speak about the plight of immigrant 
workers who are suffering because of a serious problem in our 
immigration system known as the green card backlog. Many of these 
immigrants are essential workers who are helping to lead the fight 
against COVID-19, but the green card backlog puts them and their 
families at risk of losing their immigration status and being subject 
to deportation.
  Under the current law, there are clearly not enough immigrant visas--
also known as green cards--available each year. The numbers that we 
have established in 1990 are still applicable today, though our 
national economy has doubled since then. We are still talking about 
140,000 employment visas each year.
  These so-called green cards have resulted in many people waiting for 
long periods of times--literally for years--for the opportunity to 
become legal permanent residents and securing one of the green cards. 
While they are waiting, their families are at risk.
  These backlogs are particularly difficult on children because as they 
wait, the children, of course, advance in age, and when they reach age 
21, they are subject to deportation. I have met with these families, 
and I have talked with them. It is a heartbreaking situation.
  The unanimous consent request, which I will make today, addresses the 
plight of those children directly. Senator Lee objected to it 
yesterday. He said he had not had a chance to look at it. I hope he 
will reconsider when I make the same request today.
  These children who face, what we call, aging out at age 21 would be 
protected by this unanimous consent request, which I am making. In 
addition to the green card backlog, it is clear there is a solution to 
this issue, which I am afraid we are not going to be able to achieve. 
It is to increase the number of green cards available each year in this 
country.
  These immigrant workers who are seeking green cards are already in 
the United States working legally. This is not a question of increasing 
the number of green cards, of bringing in new immigrants to compete 
with American workers. These workers are already here. It is about 
whether immigrant workers will continue to be able to work on temporary 
visas, where they have to depend on their employer for their 
immigration status and their future is uncertain.
  I introduced legislation known as the RELIEF Act. My cosponsors are 
Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. 
The RELIEF Act would increase the number of green cards to clear the 
backlog for all immigrants waiting in line for green cards within 5 
years--eliminate the backlog for green cards within 5 years.
  This RELIEF Act would keep immigrant families together by treating 
children and spouses of green card holders as immediate relatives, just 
as the children and spouses of citizens are, so they don't count 
against the green card caps. The RELIEF Act would protect the aging-out 
children who qualify for a green card based on parents' immigrant 
petition.
  The RELIEF Act that I am describing is not novel or controversial; it 
is based on a provision of the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform 
bill, which I helped to write with the so-called Gang of 8. That 
included Senator McCain, Senator Graham, Senator Flake, as well as 
Senator Rubio on the Republican side; myself, Senator Schumer, Senator 
Menendez, and Senator Bennet on the Democratic side. We worked hard and 
passed that measure through the Senate Judiciary Committee and on the 
floor by a vote of 68 to 32.
  What I am proposing is something I have proposed in the past, 
crafted, passed, and offered to the House of Representatives to help 
start to solve the immigration crisis, which we currently have in this 
country. Unfortunately, the Republicans, who controlled the House of 
Representatives when this measure came before them several years ago, 
refused to even take up this measure and debate it.
  If they had, we wouldn't be here today. The green card backlog would 
not exist based on the provision which I offered with others in the 
     comprehensive immigration reform bill. Unfortunately, some 
     of the Republicans on the other side of the aisle are 
     still unwilling to increase any number of immigrant visas. 
     They want to keep the immigrant workers on a temporary 
     basis, where they and their family are at risk of losing 
     their immigration status and being deported.
  The senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Lee, has introduced S. 386, known 
as the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, to address the green 
card backlog. I have a basic concern with that bill. It includes no 
additional green cards. Without any additional green cards, S. 386 will 
not reduce the green card backlog. Without additional green cards, S. 
386 will not reduce the green card backlog.
  Don't take it from me. There are those who will disagree and say: Oh, 
Durbin is wrong. He is just mistaken in saying that.
  Please go to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Here is 
what they said about S. 386, Senator Lee's legislation. ``S. 386 would 
not reduce future backlogs compared to current law.''
  Despite my concerns about Senator Lee's bill, I agreed to sit down 
and work in good faith with him to resolve our differences. Last 
December, we reached an agreement--I believed we did--on an amendment 
to the bill. The amendment doesn't address the core problem because it 
doesn't increase the number of green cards. As a result, it would not 
reduce the green card backlog, but there was an improvement in the 
amendment which we put together. I talked about it yesterday.
  Let me highlight two key provisions of our agreement. We protected 
the families who are stuck in this backlog waiting for a green card. 
Immigrant workers and immediate family members would be allowed to 
``early file'' for their green cards. That was a proposal that came to 
me from Senator Lee, and I thought it was reasonable. These individuals 
would not receive their green cards early, but they would be able, 
while waiting, to switch jobs and travel without losing immigration 
status. I think that is reasonable. Early filing adds a critical 
protection that wasn't in S. 386.
  Listen carefully. Our agreement prevents the children of immigrant 
workers from aging out of green card eligibility so they will not face 
deportation while they are waiting for a green card.
  Our agreement also would crack down on the abuse of H-1B temporary 
work visas. Really, I think this is at the heart of the problems we are 
running into. There are corporate entities in India, which have 
extraordinary power over the securing of these H-1B visas.
  The amendment we put together would allow legitimate use of H-1B 
visas, but here is what it would say. It would prohibit a company from 
hiring additional H-1B workers in the future if the company's workforce 
is more than 50 employees and more than 50 percent of those are 
temporary workers.
  The 50-50 rule is from a bipartisan H-1B reform bill that I authored 
with Senator Grassley. This provision was included in the 2013 
comprehensive immigration reform bill.
  Senator Lee has said publicly: This is a commonsense reform to root 
out abuse. I think he is right. I know these companies despise this 
provision, and I think it is one of the reasons we find ourselves with 
no common ground today. If this is included, they don't want anything 
to pass, and they are doing their best to stop it.
  The reality is that the top recipients of H-1B visas today are 
outsourcing companies that use loopholes in the law to exploit 
immigrant workers and 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.
  Unfortunately, yesterday, Senator Lee objected to this proposal, 
which we had put together. Instead, he offered a revised version that 
included changes that were requested by the Trump administration. Let 
me explain Senator Lee's changes because I think they are basic, and I 
believe they are a problem.

[[Page S4388]]

  First, he wants to remove a provision from our original agreement, 
known as the hold harmless clause. What it says is very simple. It 
assures immigrants already waiting in line for green cards that there 
is nothing we will do that will, in any way, injure or delay their 
pursuit of a green card; they can't fall further behind in line. We 
hold them harmless from any change we make. Why wouldn't we? Some of 
these people have waited for years. The hold harmless provision 
basically says we are going to protect wherever you stand in line.
  The second thing that Senator Lee wants to do is to delay for 3 years 
the effective date of the 50-50 rule to crack down on outsourcing 
companies. I don't know why we want to wait 3 years to do that. We 
don't have to. We shouldn't. Why on Earth would we give these companies 
that are outsourcing American jobs and exploiting immigrant workers a 
free pass for an additional 3 years?
  Third, Senator Lee wanted to delay for years early filing for people 
who are stuck in the green card backlog. The object behind the early 
filing, and the reason why it is so appealing to me, was that it would 
protect the individuals applying as well as their families from the 
start, and now the Senator suggested that we delay this. That just 
means that many children will age out during that 1-to-3-year period of 
time and be subject to deportation. We shouldn't do that to these 
children and these families.

  Yesterday, I made a simple proposal to Senator Lee, which he hadn't 
seen personally, and that is why we had to come back today. While we 
continue to debate the best way to fix the green card backlog, let's 
make sure no children of the affected families are harmed or deported. 
It is just that simple.
  I offered a new bill--very simply stated--the Protect Children of 
Immigrants Workers Act. This brief, three-page bill would ensure that 
children do not age out while waiting for a green card.
  Imagine if you brought your family to the United States, worked on an 
H-1B visa, applied for a green card to stay in this country, and your 
children are waiting with you for the green card. You are paying for 
them to go to college because they don't qualify as American citizens 
for any type of Federal financial aid. You are making great sacrifices 
for them. Then the day comes when they reach the age of 21 and they can 
be deported and the family divided. Why would we want to let that 
happen?
  This three-page bill, the Protect Children of Immigrant Workers Act, 
protects those children. It would not increase the number of green 
cards. It would not provide any special benefits. It would simply allow 
children of immigrant workers to keep their place in line for a green 
card and be protected from deportation until they can get that card.
  Yesterday, Senator Lee said he had not had a chance to review it, so 
I wanted to return to the floor today. I believe this is timely and 
important, and now he has had a chance to look at it. Senator Lee's 
original bill does not offer any protection for those children, which I 
think is a major humanitarian problem caused by the green card backlog.
  The early-filing provision in my agreement with Senator Lee will 
immediately protect the kids in the backlog under the age of 21. 
However, if early-filing is delayed, Senator Lee now proposes those 
kids would age out and lose their green card eligibility.
  I have met many of these young people. It breaks my heart to hear 
their stories, that they may be reaching a point where they have aged 
out and could be deported. That is why I want to offer this specific 
single provision. There is no reason these children should be punished 
for a broken immigration system. It is beyond their control, but it is 
not beyond our control to help them.
  I now am going to ask unanimous consent for the Protect Children of 
Immigrant Workers Act.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee 
be discharged of S. 4243, the Protect Children of Immigrant Workers 
Act, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, 
that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion 
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Reserving the right to object, for well over 8 months, my 
friend and distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, 
has been publicly blocking legislation protecting the children of 
immigrant workers. Now there is something called the Protect Children 
of Immigrant Workers Act. He comes to the floor asking that we pass 
this bill by unanimous consent--a bill that, as he notes, was 
introduced just yesterday. Well, we must pass this right now, he says, 
because these children shouldn't have to suffer 1 more hour. With all 
due respect, they could have had relief months ago. They can still have 
relief today.
  I have taken the time since yesterday to review Senator Durbin's 
legislation, and I cannot support it. This legislation allows the 
children of H-1B workers to remain in the country for the 20 to 30 
years that their parents have to wait in the green card backlog--the 
same green card backlog the Senator is now decrying
  When their parents die, children of immigrant workers will not be 
immediately deported. But this prolonging of dependent status is 
helpful only if the parent lives and works in this country until his or 
her green card application is actually adjudicated. It does nothing for 
the child of an immigrant whose dead parent's green card application is 
ultimately denied because his or her job is no longer available--
nothing.
  To be honest, the 20 to 30 years is a short wait for most of the 
Indian nationals currently stuck in this awful, hellish green card 
backlog. In fact, it is a drop in the bucket. In 2020, the wait for an 
EB2 green card is not, in fact, 20 to 30 years for an Indian national. 
What is it, then? Is it 30? Is it 40, 50, 60? No, it is much longer 
than that. It is 195 years. This means that someone from India entering 
the backlog today would have to wait 195 years to receive an EB3 green 
card. Even if we give their children this limbo status, none of them 
will have a prayer of becoming a U.S. citizen.
  To put this in perspective, 195 years ago, John Quincy Adams had 
recently been inaugurated as President of the United States.
  The legislation purports to allow aging-out children to move to a 
student visa status, but it also fails to accomplish even this. Student 
visas require the applicant to have residency in a foreign country, 
which, obviously, these children do not have.
  Perhaps these are merely drafting errors, but as such, they 
underscore my concerns about passing slapdash legislation just because 
it bears a title that compels us to believe that it will correct the 
most egregious problems and protect the most vulnerable populations.
  Even if we generously overlook these ``drafting errors,'' this 
legislation goes from sloppy to worse. Most egregiously, it will 
increase the existing green card backlog. If we pass this legislation 
on its own, high-skilled workers from highly populated countries will 
have fewer and fewer green cards available to them, meaning they will 
have to wait longer and longer for relief. In fact, by the time we 
stretch this out to 2030, the 195-year backlog I mentioned a moment ago 
would be extended out to a 400- to 450-year backlog. That is not fair. 
I can't imagine that is what the Senator from Illinois wants.
  If we want to actually protect the children of immigrant workers, we 
need to end the inequities of the green card system. Real protection 
for the children is impossible unless we have a fair path forward for 
the parents.
  I have worked for 9 years on a thoughtful solution to these problems 
in the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. This compromise 
protects children, protects widows and widowers, and it provides an 
equitable path forward for all our high-skilled immigrants. That is why 
I call on Senator Durbin to lift his hold on the Fairness for High-
Skilled Immigrants Act and to provide relief to immigrant children and 
to their parents.
  As to the suggestion that the changes made to this legislation were 
bad, that they were a departure from what we

[[Page S4389]]

agreed on, it is not true. The implementation delay simply allows the 
USCIS a time to develop the adequate infrastructure to implement what 
we had proposed, the 50-50 rule change. This 3 years is there to 
protect the H-1B visa holders who were already here. The hold-harmless 
provision was taken care of with the 3- to 9-year transition that now 
covers them.
  In any event, this legislation--the one Senator Durbin now tries to 
pass by unanimous consent, introduced for the first time yesterday that 
I have now reviewed--is sloppy. It doesn't solve the problem, and it 
would make a lot of things worse. I therefore object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there is no question that there is a 
green card backlog for immigrant visas. We issue 140,000 employment-
based visas a year and 226,000 family visas. There are some 5 million 
seeking them. I want to increase the number of green cards. The Senator 
from Utah opposes that. As a result, the bill that he introduced, 
according to analysis by the Congressional Research Service--this is 
not Durbin's language; this is the Congressional Research Service: S. 
386, the lead legislation, would not reduce future backlogs compared to 
current law.
  When he talks about 195 years and John Quincy Adams or whatever his 
historical analogy was, he doesn't address that at all in S. 386.
  The problem, of course, is that he is bound to a position of his 
party that will not allow one additional new immigrant--none. I don't 
take that position. These men and women and their kids have been living 
in the United States. Many of them have been here for years, some of 
them for decades. Some of them are doctors in hospitals in my hometown. 
I trust them, and I trust their kids. What I am asking him to do today 
is simply join with me in protecting their children while we resolve 
the other issues. He refuses. He refused yesterday. He refuses again 
today.
  He calls my approach sloppy. Let's see the Lee alternative to protect 
the children. I would like to see what he would like to propose. Maybe 
it is language that is better, and maybe I can embrace it. But let's 
take care of that discrete part of this issue. Why would we leave these 
children now aging into adults at risk? That is just the wrong way to 
approach this. We can solve this problem, and we should. While we solve 
it, we should protect these children. It is within the ken of both 
Senator Lee and myself to sit down through staff and come up with that 
language. I believe we can.
  I want to say I will continue to offer this opportunity for Senator 
Lee to protect these children until we can sit down in good faith and 
resolve any differences we have between us. I have heard this case over 
and over again about the plight of these children. I am trying to 
address it. He continues to object.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, we have the opportunity right here to pass 
this right now. This bill fixes this problem.
  As to the suggestion that we can't do any of this without increasing 
the total number of green cards--this is a poison pill. My friend and 
colleague knows that it is a poison pill. In fact, we had that very 
discussion. I don't ordinarily--in fact, I have a uniform policy 
against publicly talking about private conversations we have as 
colleagues. We have now brought it to the floor.
  We talked about this. This was the basis upon which we reached a deal 
in his office in December. The point there was to understand that we 
can't pass something--certainly by unanimous consent--that increases 
the total number of employment-based green cards. It is not going to 
happen. So we are dealing here with that finite universe. That is the 
basis of the deal we reached in December.
  As to the suggestion that we can't do anything without increasing the 
total number of green cards, the Senator knows that is not on the 
table. That is not fair. What we want to do is make this process fair, 
even if we only have a limited number of green cards to work with, 
which is the case. Whether you like that political reality or not, it 
is the political reality. It is the factual understanding that the 
Senator and I discussed and understood in December when we made that 
deal. The Lee alternative is the encapsulation of that.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee 
be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1044 and that 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?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Just do the math; 140,000 EB visas and 226,000 family 
visas per year and 5 million people waiting. If you think you can solve 
this without changing the number of green cards, you can't. You may 
address it from one angle or another. You may help some who are waiting 
as opposed to others. You only give assistance to some at the expense 
of some other group.
  I understand the Senator's position. I don't quarrel with the fact he 
made it clear from the start that, from his perspective and perhaps 
from his side of the aisle, there is just no appetite for increasing 
the number of green cards, even for these people who have been living 
and working here in the United States for years and sometimes decades, 
even for physicians from India and other countries who are literally 
risking their lives today on COVID-19 patients. The Senator told me 
there is no appetite for giving them additional green cards so they can 
stay here on a permanent basis. I think that is unfair, and that is my 
position.
  The Senator made it clear--and I am not saying otherwise--that he 
disagrees with me. So what I tried to do is come in and say that at 
least during the pendency, while they are waiting for green cards--
which could be decades unless the law is changed--let's at least 
protect their families. That is all I basically said.
  He has come back and said: I want to put in a provision that takes 
out the hold-harmless protection. I want to protect these people who 
are outsourcing companies in India that have captured the lion's share 
of these H-1B visas. I want to make sure that those who are going to be 
protected have to wait up to 3 years before there is any protection.
  Why in the world would we do any of those things? I am willing to sit 
     down and talk to you, but I am not going to accept these 
     at this point unless we can find a starting point, which 
     is protection for the children of these families. If you 
     will agree to that, I will be more than happy to discuss 
     the other provisions again, but because the other 
     provisions are now what you are offering, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, the protection for the children is now 
found in the proposal, in the amendment at the desk--the one that was 
just objected to by my friend and colleague, the Senator from Illinois.
  I would ask my colleague rhetorically or directly, as he may choose: 
If, in fact, he is unwilling and remains unwilling to negotiate on any 
bill addressing this problem without increasing the total number of 
employment-based green cards, why in the world did he waste months of 
my time? Why did he lead me to believe, while in his office, that he 
was open to such an agreement that was, in fact, the premise upon which 
we proceeded? We spent months on that, and I worked in good faith.
  As I mentioned yesterday, it was against my better judgment that I 
agreed to announce with the Senator on the Senate floor that we had 
reached an agreement because I knew that we had to work out a few 
kinks, but I proceeded based solely on the feasibility and our ability 
to implement that bill. That was the only change that we made.
  Now, if the Senator wants to make some adjustment to that, bring it 
forward. I would love to consider it. Yet what he is now telling me is 
that the premise upon which we proceeded on those negotiations and then 
spent

[[Page S4390]]

weeks and months working on was false in that the whole premise that we 
could reach some sort of compromise--an actual compromise--that 
wouldn't increase the number of total green cards available was 
illusory. I find that disappointing.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Senator has addressed a question to 
me, I believe.
  Mr. LEE. Rhetorically or otherwise, the Senator is welcome to answer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I know other Senators are waiting to 
speak, so I will try to be as concise and brief as possible.
  I understand the Senator's position. He doesn't want another green 
card. He believes Members on his side of the aisle don't want an 
increase in the number of green cards--period. I knew that going in. He 
made that abundantly clear. We can't solve the underlying problem 
without it, but we can make it better. That is why we continue to talk 
and negotiate, and I hope we will continue to talk and negotiate. Yet, 
for goodness' sake, the starting point ought to be the protection of 
these children.
  Can we not agree that we will protect the children and then proceed 
to continue the negotiations on the premise that the Senator cannot 
accept one more green card? I can, and the Senator can't, but we will 
try to improve the system with that premise accepted. At the starting 
point, for goodness' sake, let's protect the children while we 
negotiate and debate. Hopefully, we can do it on a timely basis. That 
is my response.
  I am willing to continue to work. I understand the Senator cannot 
issue another green card. The math never works with 5 million people 
waiting and 140,000 employment green cards and 226,000 family visas a 
year. It is never going to work, but I am willing to try to make the 
system better, with the understanding that I will increase the number 
of green cards and that the Senator will not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I am always happy to discuss any 
counterproposal. If the Senator would make one, I would love to see it. 
It is not fair to say I don't care about those kids because I am 
unwilling to create additional green cards. If the Senator wants to 
protect these children, pass this bill. Pass it today. Pass it at this 
very moment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4019

  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of S. 4019, 
the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act--legislation that I have 
introduced along with Senator Cornyn. We have 54 cosponsors and broad 
bipartisan support that would make Juneteenth a Federal holiday. In a 
few minutes, I will ask unanimous consent that the Senate take up and 
pass this important bill.
  Our country is in the midst of a long overdue reckoning on race and 
justice. The murder of George Floyd by members of the Minneapolis 
Police Department has galvanized the Nation as protesters have taken to 
our streets, demanding justice--justice for George Floyd, justice for 
Breonna Taylor, and justice for countless other Black and Brown 
Americans who have been hurt or killed at the hands of law enforcement. 
Yet this reckoning goes well beyond seeking accountability for police 
officers who betray the trust we bestow upon them.
  The disparate treatment and mistreatment of Black and Brown Americans 
permeates our society. It infects our courts, our schools, and our 
places of work. It reflects the unfulfilled promise of a nation built 
upon the notion that all are created equal, and it has its roots in our 
Nation's original sin--slavery--a crime against humanity that we have 
for far too long failed to acknowledge, address, or come to grips with.
  One way to further the process of racial reconciliation and healing 
is to recognize, honor, and celebrate the formal end of slavery in the 
United States and to do so at the Federal level. Perhaps the most 
effective, direct, and far-reaching way to do that is with a Federal 
holiday commemorating that historic event.
  For more than 150 years, the Juneteenth holiday, which marks the 
emancipation of slaves, has been observed one way or the other across 
our Nation, including in Texas, but it is long past time to place 
Juneteenth on par with other Federal holidays so that all Americans in 
all 50 States will celebrate Juneteenth alongside Veterans Day, 
Memorial Day, Martin Luther King Day, and other Federal holidays.
  The celebration of Juneteenth dates back to June 19, 1865, when Union 
soldiers, led by MG Gordon Granger, traveled to Galveston, TX, with the 
announcement that the Civil War had ended and that the enslaved were 
now free. This was 2\1/2\ years after the date of President Lincoln's 
Emancipation Proclamation, but either the news of Lincoln's order had 
not reached many, including those in Texas, or local officials had 
refused to enforce it.
  On June 19, 1865, Major General Granger read to the people of Texas 
General Order No. 3, the first lines of which told them clearly and 
unequivocally: ``The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance 
with a Proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves 
are free.''
  Juneteenth celebrations followed as did the recognition of Juneteenth 
as the formal end of slavery in the United States. Since 1865, 
communities all across the Nation have celebrated Juneteenth with 
parades, cookouts, prayer gatherings, historical and cultural readings, 
musical performances, and many other celebrations. These events have 
provided many with the opportunity for reflection, education, and a 
deeper understanding of our history as a nation--the whole history--and 
how it has affected and shaped the lives of Black Americans.
  Nearly every State and the District of Columbia have passed 
legislation recognizing Juneteenth as a holiday or observance, and the 
Senate has passed a resolution designating June 19 as Juneteenth 
Independence Day, but Juneteenth has never received the higher status 
it deserves as a Federal holiday. The Juneteenth National Independence 
Day Act rights this wrong and makes Juneteenth a Federal holiday.
  We still must travel a long and difficult road to justice and 
equality in the United States, but we cannot get there without 
recognizing the original sin of slavery and marking its end. It is 
incumbent upon all Americans to truthfully acknowledge and understand 
our past and how it affects our present and our future. Making 
Juneteenth a Federal holiday will not right all of the wrongs of the 
past or fix what remains broken, but it is an important step. It is the 
truth of our history and the missing half of the story of our Nation's 
freedom and independence. It is long past time to recognize Juneteenth 
as a Federal holiday.
  Let me stop there and recognize my partner in this effort, the senior 
Senator from Texas
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I will be brief.
  Let me just tell the Senator from Massachusetts that I agree with 
everything he has said. It shows how people of, maybe, different 
political ideologies--certainly different parties--can come together 
and recognize that there is a moment available to us here in which we 
can demonstrate our nonpartisan support for this act of racial 
reconciliation in our country.
  I agree that slavery was the original sin. Our founding documents 
said that all men and women were created equal, but that certainly 
wasn't the practice when it came to African Americans at the time who 
were officially designated as something less than fully human. It was 
an outrageous act at the time, and our country has paid a dear price 
for that over the years--from the Civil War to the violence that led up 
to the peaceful civil rights movement in the sixties. It is obvious 
from the recent events--George Floyd's death in particular--that we are 
not where we need to be. We still have room to grow as part of our 
developing that more perfect Union.
  I know our friend and colleague Tim Scott, who has been at the 
forefront of this discussion with his advocacy for the Justice Act, has 
a lot of bipartisan ideas for police reform. He points out that, as an 
African American, his experience has been much different from

[[Page S4391]]

those who are non-African Americans. He said, over the last two 
decades, he has been stopped--as he puts it, ``driving while Black''--
about 18 different times.
  At a roundtable that was sponsored by Mayor Sylvester Turner and that 
I had requested, I sat next to a pastor of a church in Houston who 
happened to be the local head of the NAACP.
  He said: I honor the police. I respect the police. I support the 
police. Yet he said: My son is afraid of the police, and we have to do 
everything we can to cure that trust deficit.
  In Texas, we have recognized Juneteenth as a State holiday for 40 
years, obviously, because of the fact that this occurred as a result of 
the Emancipation Proclamation's being announced in Galveston, TX. Yet I 
recently cosponsored a bill with Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee to 
study a trail, basically, from Galveston to Houston as the possible 
designation of a national park in further recognition of this event.
  I believe strongly that we need to remember our history because if we 
don't remember our history, in the words of one sage, ``we will be 
condemned to relive it.'' We have come so far, but we know we still 
have further to go. I do believe that the appropriate word to use is 
``reconciliation.'' This is an opportunity for us to demonstrate our 
concern and our commitment to equal justice and equal treatment under 
the law by recognizing Juneteenth as a Federal holiday.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Senator from Texas. This is a thoroughly 
bipartisan effort, and it is long overdue.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the 
Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate 
now proceed to S. 4019; further, that the bill be considered read a 
third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, in reserving the right to object, let 
me start out by saying that I agree with virtually everything my 
colleagues from both Massachusetts and Texas have said about 
celebrating the emancipation of the slaves. That was an important 
moment in U.S. history. It should be observed, and it should be 
celebrated. I have no disagreement whatsoever with that at all. The one 
area of disagreement is how the bill's sponsors have chosen to 
celebrate that holiday.
  As the Senator from Massachusetts pointed out, since 1865, it has 
been observed with celebrations and cookouts, which is the appropriate 
way of doing this. I object to the fact that, by naming it a national 
holiday--and what they are leaving out of their argument and its main 
impact--it will give Federal workers a paid day off that the rest of 
America will have to pay for.
  When I asked for a CBO score, the sponsors of the bill had not even 
obtained a score, and I still don't think they have obtained a score. 
The estimate, in terms of what it will cost American taxpayers in the 
private sector to pay for a paid holiday for Federal workers, is about 
$600 million per year. The CBO score would come in at $6 billion over 
10.
  In terms of why I object, let me just put a couple of facts to that 
$600 million bill that hard-working taxpayers would have to foot in an 
era when we are $26.5 trillion in debt and when 17 million of our 
fellow Americans are currently unemployed.
  The first chart here--let's just talk about how many days off Federal 
workers get currently.
  I have two columns--minimum and maximum. For paid holidays, they get 
10, which is pretty generous. Most people in the private sector get 
something similar--7, 8, 9, or 10. For paid leave days, there is a 
minimum of 13, up to 26; for paid sick days, 13, minimum and maximum.
  What we just added in last year's NDAA was paid parental leave, which 
allows an individual--either mother or father, with either a natural 
childbirth or an adoption--60 days of paid leave.
  So for a total, at a minimum, there are 96 days, up to 109 days if 
they take paid parental leave.
  Looked at a different way, as a ratio, if they take the maximum 
number of 109 days, that is, basically, for every 1.4 days you work, 
you get a day off. On a minimum basis with paid parental leave, for 
every 1.7 days you work, you get a day off.
  Now, again, I realize the paid parental leave is a ``just a few times 
in somebody's career'' phenomenon, so let's take a look at this without 
paid parental leave, and it will show that the number of days with pay 
that Federal workers get off is still quite generous.
  Again, paid holidays, they get 10; paid leave, 13, up to 26; paid 
sick leave, 13, for a total of 36 to 49.
  So, again, going back to that ratio, the maximum number of days 
without paid parental leave, a Federal worker can work 4.3 days and 
then get a day off--basically a 4-day workweek for the entire year. 
That is quite generous.
  So what I am objecting to is creating a national holiday that gives 
Federal workers another day off with pay, paid for by the American 
taxpayer, and we are collectively already $26.5 trillion in debt.
  Last slide. I would like to just, in general, talk about the private 
sector pay versus Federal worker pay. I know there are some disputes 
about this in terms of education and that type of thing, but still, 
this is pretty solid information.
  The 2018 average annual wage--just wages, salary or wages--for 
Federal workers is over $94,000. For private sector workers, the 
average is about $63,000 or about 67 percent of what a Federal worker 
makes.
  When you add in benefits, total compensation, the average total 
compensation for Federal workers in 2018 was $136,000, just shy of 
$136,000. In the private sector, the total cost of compensation is a 
little more than $75,000--55 percent of what Federal Government workers 
make.
  So if you strip out and just compare the benefits, again, we are 
talking about an extra paid day off, an extra paid holiday for only 
Federal workers to celebrate Juneteenth, paid for by American workers 
who make about $12,000, on average per benefit, compared to $41,000 in 
benefits for Federal workers. That is only 29 percent.
  So those are the facts. Again, that is what I object to.
  Again, I am happy to celebrate Juneteenth. I think we should 
celebrate the fact that we did remove that original sin by emancipating 
the slaves. That is a day of celebration. I agree with that. I simply 
don't believe we should make American taxpayers in the private sector 
pony up $600 million a year, $6 billion over 10 years, to give Federal 
workers, who already are paid quite generously and have quite a few 
days off one more paid day off.
  So what I am proposing--again, I don't object to Juneteenth and a 
celebration, but if we are going to make that a Federal holiday, the 
main impact of that is giving Federal workers a paid day off. I would 
just suggest this: Why don't we take away one of their days of paid 
leave?
  So I have an amendment at the desk, and I would ask that the Senator 
from Massachusetts modify his request to include my amendment at the 
desk; that the amendment be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as 
amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the 
Senator's proposal--rather than allowing this unanimous consent request 
to go through, the Senator proposes to hold it hostage to taking away 
the leave benefits that come with paid holidays for American workers. 
That is something we have never done before, and with good reason. We 
shouldn't be penalizing our workers by taking away benefits, especially 
not in the current environment and especially not as the price to pay 
for recognizing a long overdue Federal holiday.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and to 
quickly respond to the Senator from Massachusetts, I am not taking 
anything away from Federal workers. I am just not willing to give them 
an extra day paid.

[[Page S4392]]

  So if we create Juneteenth as a Federal paid holiday, they will get 
an extra day, and I am just saying let's keep them whole by removing a 
paid leave day, and then they will have the exact same number of days 
off as they have currently, and the American taxpayer will not be out 
an extra $600 million per year or $6 billion over 10 years.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                        Prescription Drug Costs

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, before I speak, several of my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle, over the next several minutes--
well, probably for more than a half hour--will be coming to the floor 
to discuss what I am discussing, which is a very important problem we 
have of rapidly increasing drug prices.
  After I speak, these other Senators will come to the floor: Senator 
Braun, Senator Cassidy, Senator Collins, Senator Hyde-Smith, Senator 
McSally. All of these people have been very favorable in support of the 
Prescription Drug Reduction Act, and I want to thank them for 
participating in bringing attention to this very important issue of 
unjustified increases in drug prices.
  After these folks I just mentioned speak, I understand that my 
colleague from Iowa, who is in support of the legislation, is going to 
come at a later time today.
  So thank you to my colleagues.
  According to a recent Gallup poll, 9 out of 10 Americans are 
concerned about prescription drug prices. Specifically, they are 
concerned that the pharmaceutical industry will take advantage of the 
current pandemic to increase drug prices. That poll was published a 
month ago. Unfortunately, those concerns have become a reality now.
  Two weeks ago, POLITICO reported that pharmaceutical companies have 
raised prices on hundreds of prescription drugs just during the 
pandemic. The report says that there have been more than 800--800--
price increases just this year.
  I have been working on a bill for over a year and a half to stem 
these increases and rein in drug prices. It would cap costs for 
Medicare recipients, cap increases to the rate of inflation, and save 
taxpayers nearly $100 billion. It wasn't simple, but I am glad to have 
produced this kind of bill with Ranking Member Wyden and my colleagues 
here with me today.
  But I am disappointed. My partner and all of my Democratic colleagues 
who approved this bill in committee by a vote of 19 to 9 declined to 
cosponsor an improved version of the bill that they helped put together 
in the first place, and this is the work of about 18 months.
  I can't be sure why, but I have to assume it is because it is an 
election year, and, somehow, passing a bill that would do so much good 
in a time with so much hardship might help Republicans who also support 
the bill, hurting Democrats' chances of taking the majority.
  As we consider a new relief bill, we ought to put aside that kind of 
politics-before-people method of legislating. We need to approve the 
Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act as part of this package. Our 
country is facing the most serious public health crisis in a 
generation--not just a generation, if you think back--in generations.
  Millions of Americans are newly unemployed, and many small businesses 
have slowed or shuttered altogether. People across the country are 
stretching their paychecks and their savings to get through this virus 
pandemic.
  In the CARES Act, passed in March, and in subsequent legislation, we 
helped slow the hurt caused by this virus. But there is only so much a 
stimulus check or tax relief can do when your bills just keep coming 
and going up--meaning the pharmaceutical bills.
  These drug price increases are a weight that Americans shouldn't have 
to bear, especially seniors on whom the virus is taking a particular 
toll.
  The increases aren't a result of a functioning marketplace or an 
industry with healthy competition. Addressing these price increases is 
also something we all largely agree on.
  In 2016, the President campaigned on making the marketplace for 
prescription drugs fairer and more affordable for patients. He won. He 
even talked about that promise in a State of the Union message when he 
said that he wants Congress to send a bill for him to sign this year.
  So the President made that campaign promise in 2016, and the 
President has done many things since then to carry out that campaign 
promise. He has even helped me in the development of this legislation.
  That was 2016. This is 2020. In 2018, we have had many House 
Democrats campaign on making the marketplace for prescription drugs 
fairer and more affordable. Many of them won, and they took over the 
House of Representatives. It is time to put politics aside and finally 
act.
  Just because Big Pharma was bankrupting patients before the pandemic 
doesn't mean that we should allow them to keep on doing it now. In 
fact, there is no better time to put an end to Big Pharma's price 
gouging than right now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, Senator Grassley and I share a passion 
that I think most Americans do in that it is time that we end this 
stranglehold that the healthcare industry has on all of us because they 
pose as free enterprisers, but there is nothing free about the way they 
actually operate.
  ``Free enterprise'' means you embrace competition. You are not 
putting up barriers to entry. You engage the consumer so that they can 
see what you are charging them. That does not occur. The alternative 
will be as clear on the other side of the aisle; they want to make 
government the business partner of healthcare. If the industry doesn't 
get with it and start doing what all the rest of us do when we go to 
the marketplace--embrace competition, be willing to compete, don't ask 
for barriers to entry, and, yes, we tell the customer what we charge 
them before they buy it. That doesn't happen in healthcare.

  The market is opaque and complex. There is nothing free about it, 
except that drugmakers are free to charge whatever they want. The 
market is dependent on government-sanctioned rebates and monopolies by 
the FDA exclusivities and patent abuse. It is time to fix this. PBM may 
not mean much to the public, but it stands for pharmacy benefit 
managers. This is a structure of middleman that is not present in other 
industries. Normally, with transparency, prices cascade down through 
the system in a way that everybody can see it, and the successful 
survivors in that industry have performed because they give good value 
to their customers; they keep their overhead low; and they earn the 
business.
  PBMs use techniques like spread pricing. Normally, there is a 
spread--you buy it for this and sell it for that--but not where people 
can't see it. It is time that we get away from this complexity and the 
opaqueness of it because the day of reckoning will come, and the day of 
reckoning is not too far away.
  I recently came from the business world. No one likes the healthcare 
industry other than the CEOs and owners of these businesses. All of us 
who have to deal with them are just asking for that one simple thing: 
Show us what things cost. Quit hiding it. Insurance companies have 
these secret deals with hospitals, with pharma, and it is starting to 
cost too much. It shows up in the fact that it is nearly 20 percent of 
our GDP in the United States, and it costs almost half of that in most 
other developed countries. The sad thing is, the results aren't any 
better. In many cases, the results are better at a price that is half 
the cost.
  Both Chairman Grassley and I have talked with President Trump. 
President Trump has been the most vocal individual in DC about trying 
to get the industry to work like the rest of us entrepreneurs do. Every 
time he has an Executive order, they take him to court. That is ending 
because just recently the hospitals tried that, and the district court 
overturned it. They will probably appeal it, and, hopefully, the 
appellate court will overturn it.
  I have a transparency bill which is as simple as: Show us what you 
are charging us before we engage your service.

[[Page S4393]]

Mr. Grassley has the same thing basically on drug pricing. Let me tell 
you how that works.
  This is a real live experiment that I put into place 12 years ago. I 
was so sick and tired of the insurance agents coming in and telling me 
how lucky I was that it was only going up 5 to 10 percent this year. I 
didn't think I was very lucky. My company wasn't large enough to spend 
a lot of time on it. When we got to be 300 employees, that starts to 
add up. Now we have 1,000 employees. Thank goodness my kids have to 
deal with that with a good, young executive team, but I put something 
in place 12 years ago that I am proud of.
  I said enough was enough. What do we have that is really going to 
change the dynamic? You have to remember, this is 12 years ago--talk 
about trying to find transparency then. We were lucky that we were 
large enough to self-insure. By doing that, we probably saved close to 
25 percent, and by engaging our employees in their own well-being and 
incentivizing them to shop around to enable their ability to find 
better prices, it was even there if you looked for it hard back then. 
Long story short, we have not had a premium increase at my company in 
12 years. I am proud of that. We covered preexisting conditions with no 
caps on coverage because we took a radical change to how healthcare 
should be bought by the consumer, the employer, and forced the 
transparency out of a system that wasn't giving much of it then.
  Now there is more transparency, but it is just on the fringes. If you 
get that to happen, prices will cascade down through the system. 
President Trump had another Executive order for pharma--all these 
expensive drugs you see advertised--to put the price along with the 
advertisement. A lot of times it is deceptive--you can get it for as 
little as $5 a month. Well, somebody is paying for that $60,000 or 
$70,000 drug. Generally, it is the employer, and the employee some of 
it, but it is, again, due to the fact that we can't see anything.
  Americans are blindfolded from prices, only to receive medical bills, 
often, that arrive 2 months later. They have no idea, and they open up 
the envelope with trepidation. Oh my goodness. It wasn't what I thought 
it would be. More often than not, it is: Oh, my gosh. This is terrible. 
It has got to end.
  It would be different if we were asking for something that is 
radical. What we are asking for is tell us what you are charging us 
before we have to engage your services.
  That is why it is so important. The White House is behind it. 
Hopefully, the other side of the aisle will get behind it. Support 
Chairman Grassley's bill, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act, 
and support my bill, the Healthcare Price Transparency Act. The story I 
told you about my own company would happen across the country, and we 
wouldn't be complaining about these surprise billings. We wouldn't be 
holding our breath. We would simply be doing what all educated 
consumers do when they go to buy from a truly free enterprise.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). The Senator from Louisiana
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, COVID-19 is a continuing threat to 
Americans' physical and financial health, and it is at this 
intersection that Congress can make a meaningful impact on the family 
budgets of all Americans by passing sensible legislation to lower the 
cost of prescription drugs through measures such as the Prescription 
Drug Pricing Reduction Act or, as I like to call it, the ``Making 
Coronavirus Medications Affordable Act.''
  There is an urgent need to lower the cost of prescription drugs. The 
high price of drugs is not a new problem, but it is a problem that is 
going to be made worse by the coronavirus pandemic. Millions of 
households have seen their incomes suffer due to economic lockdowns 
aimed at containing the virus.
  It is encouraging that job numbers continue to outpace expectations, 
but still, millions of fellow Americans are out of work, which affects 
their pocketbook and potentially their insurance coverage. Americans do 
not need the added burden of expensive drugs, particularly right now.
  Congress is providing relief for American families and businesses 
through the COVID-19 crisis, and we are considering another round of 
support. I think we should include how do we make drugs more 
affordable. That way, if folks become ill, they know that they will be 
able to afford the cure. I believe the best path forward is the 
``Making Coronavirus Drugs Affordable Act,'' as I call it, or, as 
Chairman Grassley calls it, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction 
Act. I like mine better.
  Now, the difficulty in addressing the issue of the price of 
medications is that a balance must be struck between making sure the 
medication is affordable but also making sure there is still a profit 
motive that will incentivize the researchers and pharmaceutical 
companies to find these cures that we know we need. Just think about 
it. Without innovation, we would not be able to find a vaccine for 
coronavirus--a vaccine that will save millions of lives worldwide and 
allow us to go back to a normal life.
  Let me just praise the pharmaceutical industry. We have seen them 
respond to this crisis in many helpful ways. Additionally, they 
recently committed a billion dollars to antimicrobial resistance, which 
is to say, to find an antibiotic that will work when other antibiotics 
no longer do. They have invested in large-scale and rapid treatment 
options, and, again, it is only through innovation that we will beat 
this virus and end the pandemic.
  But we must remember this: If a patient cannot afford the innovation, 
the new medicine, it is as if the innovation never occurred. The 
``Making Coronavirus Drugs Affordable Act'' strikes the balance between 
lowering costs for families and incentivizing companies to find those 
cures.
  Let me show you what this bill does. It caps the patient's out-of-
pocket expenses. It lets patients pay over time. It protects patients 
from price gouging, and it preserves the incentive for companies to 
find cures. Let me explain each of these.
  First, the bill caps the out-of-pocket expense for those in the 
Medicare Part D Program, our senior citizens, and particularly for the 
most vulnerable seniors with chronic conditions. Research has shown 
that seniors are at the most risk for severe complications and death 
from COVID-19. When a treatment or cure is widely available, cost 
should never be a barrier for a senior to access the drug that she or 
he needs to survive.
  Under the current system, this is what a senior citizen pays for 
their medicinal benefit under Medicare Part D. They have a deductible 
for which the senior pays 100 percent; the initial coverage phase and 
the coverage gap phase, for which they pay one-fourth of the expense; 
and then in the catastrophic phase, the patient pays 5 percent of the 
cost no matter how high that expense goes.
  So let's imagine a medication which costs over $1 million. They are 
paying 5 percent of that medication cost, and if I could stand up any 
higher--but I keep losing my microphone--they will pay 5 percent of 
that. Think about a theoretical drug that costs $3 million a year. The 
senior would be required to pay 5 percent of whatever that drug costs. 
That is under current law. What we are trying to do is fix this. If 
this occurs, the senior will not be able to afford lifesaving 
medications.
  Under the legislation that we are attempting to pass, it would change 
the Medicare Part D standard benefit so that there is still the initial 
deductible in which the senior pays 100 percent, but after paying 20 
percent of the initial coverage phase, there is no longer that 5 
percent toward infinity. We make medications affordable for the senior. 
If that is all the bill did, we would do something quite remarkable for 
the ability of a patient to be able to afford a potentially lifesaving 
drug.
  By the way, as a physician, I know this is a barrier for patients to 
be able to have their drugs. So we address that in this bill.
  The second thing we do--you might say: Wait a second. The senior 
citizen if he or she has to pay for all this for a very expensive drug 
in the month of January, they can't afford that. Under the current 
situation, the senior has to pay her deductible and her initial 
coverage phase whenever it is due, which might be in the first week of 
the year. What we also do in this bill is we give the senior citizen 
the opportunity to pay all this lump sum as a series of

[[Page S4394]]

payments over 12 months. So let's imagine that this was $10,000. 
Instead of having to pay all of it in January, she could pay $800 every 
month over the course of the year. That allows her to budget and to 
factor it in with the other sources of income that she has. Not only do 
we cap the senior citizen's out-of-pocket expense, but we also allow 
her to pay that expense over a set of months so she can factor it into 
her budget. That is the second great thing that this bill does.
  What is another thing that we do? Senator Braun also referred to 
this, but we also have cost transparency. If there is a medication 
which has the price being elevated unnecessarily, and if the customer 
knew that, she would know: Wait a second. I can get my medications far 
less expensively here versus there or, if I accept a substitute, again, 
the medication will be more affordable. We mandate that kind of price 
transparency that allows the customer to make an informed decision.
  Now, I know there are competing ideas on how to lower drug costs. 
House Democrats, for example, have introduced legislation that they 
claim would lower costs. But, remember, I told you that there is this 
tension. How do we preserve the incentive to innovate while still 
making sure the innovation is affordable?
  House Democrats have put up a bill. Yes, it makes medicine more 
affordable, but it kills the desire to innovate. The Congressional 
Budget Office has estimated that if the bill the House Democrats have 
proposed is passed, there will be 38 fewer cures invented by 
pharmaceutical manufacturers--38 fewer cures.
  Let me tell you a story. I mentioned that I am a physician. I came of 
age in my residency, if you will, when the AIDS epidemic hit. I was 25 
years old or 27 years old, and I would see men my age dying of HIV. We 
didn't have an antibody then. If you were diagnosed with HIV--again, we 
called it AIDS then--you basically were dead because we had no cures. 
Since then, we now have medications that--if you are infected with HIV, 
you can live until you are 75 years old or 80 years old. We have found 
something that doesn't quite cure, but it allows it to be treated as a 
chronic condition. What if we didn't have that cure? What if that were 
one of the 38 cures we never had?
  What if one of the cures we lose out on is a cure for Alzheimer's? My 
parents died of Alzheimer's. All of us know somebody affected by 
Alzheimer's or dementia. What if the cure we lose is the cure for 
Alzheimer's?
  You may think you are making medications less expensive, but in terms 
of human life, you are making it that much more expensive because 
instead of finding that cure for Alzheimer's, you instead have 
consigned those people with Alzheimer's to a slow, awful death--awful 
for them and awful for their loved ones as they see their parents 
decline. I would argue that it is fool's gold to say that the House 
Democratic bill saves money. It just shifts it, and it shifts it to the 
misery of the family who will never enjoy one of these cures that are 
not otherwise developed.
  To fix the problem of the high cost of drugs, it will take a 
bipartisan coalition. We have that with this bill. It ends government 
handouts to pharmaceutical companies, but it doesn't price-fix. It 
saves $80 billion for the taxpayer and for the patient, and it 
maintains incentives for lifesaving innovations.
  Some in this Chamber will be tempted to stop this bill until after 
this year's election. To them, I would say: Don't let politics keep us 
from delivering drug-pricing relief for American families. Too much is 
on the line, especially during this pandemic. To do nothing while 
families try to pay medical bills is wrong. Let's work together to pass 
this bill to lower the cost of drugs, to protect innovation, and to 
save lives.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, let me recognize and thank Senator 
Grassley for his extraordinary leadership on an issue that matters so 
greatly to the American people, and that is the high cost of 
prescription drugs. His persistence has produced the Prescription Drug 
Pricing Reduction Act, a far-reaching set of bold proposals that I 
strongly endorse and that build on the work I have done as the chairman 
of the Senate Aging Committee.
  More than half of all Americans and 90 percent of our seniors take at 
least one prescription drug each month. We should be able to work 
together to help the American people--particularly our seniors--on an 
issue that affects their health and their finances. No senior should be 
faced with the choice of buying food they need, paying a bill for the 
oil to heat their home, or buying their prescription drug.
  I remember very well being in line at the pharmacy in Bangor, ME, and 
the couple in front of me found out that their copay was $113. The 
husband looked at his wife and he said: Honey, we just can't afford 
that. They left the prescription that one of them needed that was 
prescribed by their doctor there on the pharmacy counter. When I asked 
the pharmacist how often this happens, he said: Each and every day. 
Every day.
  That is why we should be working together to pass Senator Grassley's 
bill, as well as many of the other bipartisan bills that you have heard 
described today, including legislation that I have advocated to improve 
the lives of millions of Americans. This goal surely should be beyond 
partisan politics.
  In just the last year, three Senate committees advanced legislation 
to reform our flawed drug-pricing system. I can't think of anything 
else that we buy where the price is less transparent and is more opaque 
than prescription drugs.
  The Finance Committee's bill, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction 
Act, which I am proud to cosponsor, would make crucial improvements. As 
Senator Cassidy just ably explained, one of the most important 
improvements is to Medicare Part D. It would protect our seniors with 
an out-of-pocket spending limit. It would also include cost-control 
measures, such as an inflationary cap to limit price hikes. We have 
made some progress in this area.
  I have authored legislation that is making a difference for patients. 
One of the laws I authored bans gag clauses that had prohibited 
pharmacists from informing their customers if there were a less 
expensive way to purchase their prescription drug. Amazingly enough, 
sometimes it is cheaper to pay out-of-pocket than to use your insurance 
card--not something that most consumers would ever realize unless the 
pharmacist informed him or her.
  My bill also updates a 2003 law requiring drug manufacturers to 
notify the Federal Trade Commission of patent settlement agreements, 
giving the agency greater visibility into whether they include tactics 
such as anti-competitive reverse payments that slow or defeat the 
introduction of lower cost drugs. Another law I authored is helping to 
bring lower cost generics to the marketplace more quickly by expediting 
their approval by the FDA.
  But clearly there is more that we must do. At a time when economic 
and health security are more linked than ever, Congress has an 
opportunity to deliver a decisive victory in lowering costs for 
patients.
  In addition to the Finance Committee package, the HELP Committee 
bill--I serve on the HELP Committee, which is chaired by Senator 
Alexander--incorporated more than 14 bipartisan measures to increase 
price competition, including portions of a bill that I introduced with 
Senator Tim Kaine, the Biologic Patent Transparency Act, which is 
intended to prevent drug manufacturers from gaming the patent system.
  Patents are important to encourage the development of earth-breaking, 
groundbreaking new pharmaceuticals, but the system should not be gamed 
so that when the patent is about to expire, a host of new patents are 
filed on the medication in order to block a lower cost generic from 
coming to market.
  In October, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review published 
its first annual report on unjustified price increases of prescription 
drugs in our country. It should surprise no one that HUMIRA, the poster 
child for patent gaming, led the list. HUMIRA's price increased by 
nearly 16 percent from 2017 to 2018, costing American patients and 
insureds an extra $1.86 billion. Why do we want to wait any longer, and 
how did HUMIRA do it? It once again put up

[[Page S4395]]

this patent thicket--its manufacturer did--in order to block the lower 
price biosimilar.
  The Judiciary Committee has advanced bills that empower the Federal 
Trade Commission to take more aggressive action on drug pricing. This 
year, the FTC charged the infamous Martin Shkreli with a scheme to 
increase the price of the lifesaving drug Daraprim by more than 4,000 
percent overnight, which was the focus of an Aging Committee 
investigation that I led with former Senator Claire McCaskill in 2016.
  Floor consideration should also allow for action on other important 
prescription drug bills, such as legislation that Senator Jeanne 
Shaheen and I have authored to eliminate incentives that create price 
hikes, distorting the insulin market. Insulin has been around for 100 
years. I realize there is fast-acting and slow-acting insulin, but 
there is no excuse for the skyrocketing price of insulin.
  There is another bill that I cosponsored, introduced by Senators 
Klobuchar and Grassley, that would end pay-for-delay schemes.
  We must come together on prescription drug legislation without 
further delay. Three committees have produced strong bipartisan bills, 
and we should proceed to act and pass this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in calling 
on this body to include the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act of 
2020 in the next coronavirus relief bill so that we can finally address 
the high cost of prescription drugs.
  The troubles caused by skyrocketing drug prices are a never-ending 
source of worry and hardship for Mississippians and people across this 
entire country. I hear about this issue from constituents more than 
just about any other issue when I go home. I hear this all the time. I 
go to church with people who have to decide whether they are going to 
buy their drugs or buy food. That is a reality we live with.
  Let me highlight a few stories shared with me by some of my 
constituents
  Emily Quinn lives in Fulton, MS. Her husband, Brian, was diagnosed 
with type 1 diabetes at the age of 2 and continues to rely on insulin 
daily. Her son Dylan, who is now 16, was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes 
at the age of 6. The Quinn family pays more than $2,700 each month for 
just Brian's and Dylan's insulin, not including other diabetic 
equipment and supplies that they have to have.
  It is shocking that more than a century--a century, not a decade; a 
century, 100 years--after insulin was discovered, insulin prices 
continue to rise by staggering amounts, nearly 300 percent over the 
last 10 years.
  Scott Crawford of Jackson, MS, is a volunteer advocate for multiple 
sclerosis. Scott was diagnosed with primary progressive MS in 2002. 
Only one drug, named OCREVUS, can help slow the advancement of this 
disabling disease. That drug costs a staggering $65,000 a year--more 
than most Mississippians make. Even with good insurance coverage, Scott 
cannot afford the $15,000 copay for OCREVUS, so he just goes without.
  MS drugs have seen some of the most shocking price increases of all, 
with list prices rising nearly 450 percent over the last 10 years.
  Two young neurologists in Mississippi told me about their Medicare 
patients who quickly move into the catastrophic phase of Medicare Part 
D early each year. Even though these patients face only a 5-percent 
out-of-pocket cost for their drugs in this phase, that small percentage 
can amount to thousands of dollars for the expensive neurology drugs 
these patients depend on. Because there is currently no Medicare Part D 
out-of-pocket cap, these patients will get no relief from high drug 
prices later in the year when they still have to have them.
  These are just a few of the many stories that I have received from 
Mississippians. I have one of my own as well.
  My mother, a Medicare beneficiary living in Monticello, MS--Hyde, 
Lorraine--faced $454.50--right there--in out-of-pocket costs for her 
prescription eye drops earlier this year. A tiny bottle of eye drops 
cost $454.50. The drug, RESTASIS, has been on the market well over a 
decade--more than enough time for Allergan, the pharmaceutical company 
that developed the drug, to recoup its investment. Yet the average 
wholesale price of this drug has increased almost 250 percent in 10 
years. It was almost unbelievable when my mom called me and told me 
what she paid for eye drops.
  This case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court because Allergan 
had undertaken what I consider one of the most blatantly anti-
competitive schemes in the history of the pharmaceutical industry. 
Fearing competition after its RESTASIS patent expired in 2014, Allergan 
transferred the patents to a Native American Tribe in an attempt to use 
the Tribe's sovereign immunity to shield Allergan against competition 
from lower priced generic alternatives. As I said, this case went all 
the way to the Supreme Court in 2018.
  Even though the Supreme Court ultimately ruled this scheme was 
illegal, the company's underhanded ploy successfully delayed 
competition while it continued to reap outrageous benefits from 
RESTASIS, costing the U.S. healthcare system over $2 billion per year 
because of their monopoly pricing.
  We want pharmaceutical companies to succeed. The great cures and 
treatments they discover improve the lives of many, many Americans. We 
recognize that fact. But these cures and therapeutics can only save 
lives if the patients can afford them. Too many Mississippians and 
individuals across this country cannot afford their prescription drugs 
due to the anti-competitive prices of companies--like Allergan--that 
continue to increase their prices year after year.
  Today, the threat of the coronavirus pandemic has only increased 
concerns about drug pricing. As new vaccines and treatments for COVID-
19 are being tested and developed, the affordability of prescription 
drugs is more important than ever. Just as much as we need a vaccine or 
treatment to be discovered, we also need it to be affordable for 
Americans if we are going to get on the other side of this pandemic.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Finance Committee 
chairman's comprehensive Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act to 
bring affordability and fairness to the prescription drug market. This 
bill must be an immediate priority for us as leaders if we are 
serious--if we are serious--about helping patients afford the drugs 
they need.
  This important legislation would create a true out-of-pocket cap for 
Medicare beneficiaries, reinforce the market forces that have supported 
the research and development of so many miracle cures, keep 
pharmaceutical companies from price gouging, prevent taxpayers from 
being on the hook for unlimited price hacks that have no basis in the 
free market, stop the hurtful tactics of pharmacy benefit managers that 
hurt patients and community pharmacies while enriching the middlemen.
  These reforms could reduce out-of-pocket spending on prescription 
drugs by $72 billion, reduce premiums by $1 billion, and save taxpayers 
$95 billion. The Congressional Budget Office anticipates those savings 
will spill over into even more savings in the commercial health market.
  This is a priority that should transcend party politics. Yet 
Democrats who had previously supported Chairman Grassley's reform 
legislation have walked away from the drug pricing negotiation table 
altogether. They would rather deny President Trump a victory on this 
issue than help the millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet 
due to high drug costs. There is no doubt about it: They are putting 
election-year politics ahead of making prescription drugs affordable 
for the American people.
  The American people can't wait. Every month they continue to block 
this vital legislation is another month of thousands of dollars in 
insulin expenses for the Quinn family in Fulton, MS. Every month 
delayed is another month that Scott Crawford's MS advances because he 
cannot afford his medications. Every month is another month that those 
neurologists in Jackson will continue to worry about their patients on 
Medicare who face unlimited expenses due to no out-of-pocket cap.
  These patients, and millions more like them, cannot wait until next 
year

[[Page S4396]]

or until the coronavirus pandemic passes or until Democrats decide to 
put the American people over politics.
  Mississippians and Americans need a solution now. My friend the 
Senator from Iowa has done the hard work of writing a bill over the 
past 18 months that can address the heart of the issue and garner 
bipartisan consensus. I call on my colleagues to include the 
Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act in the next coronavirus relief 
package.
  I have been very excited to work on this. This is one of the very 
reasons that I came to Washington, DC--to help Mississippians
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Ms. McSALLY. Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Grassley for his 
tireless leadership on lowering the cost of prescription drugs for 
Americans. I am proud to join with him on the floor today and join him 
in his legislation that we must pass to help Americans and to help 
Arizonans.
  Everywhere I go--and when I am hearing from Arizonans--I am 
constantly hearing about the rising costs of prescription drugs. It is 
among one of their top and most pressing concerns. From seniors who 
can't afford their medications to parents struggling to care for a 
child who suffers from chronic conditions, out-of-pocket drug costs are 
too high. Far too many seniors and hard-working individuals in our 
State either can't afford both their groceries and their medications or 
they have been forced to ration their prescriptions because of 
skyrocketing drug costs.
  In 2017, AARP Arizona reported that a whopping 26 percent of our 
residents stopped taking their medications as prescribed due to cost.
  Last fall, I heard from a constituent in her midsixties from Green 
Valley, AZ, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and taking 
several medications to treat her condition. When she transitioned to 
Medicare Part D from her employer's health plan, her out-of-pocket 
costs for one of the drugs she was taking--Enbrel--went from $10 per 
month to nearly $6,000 per month. This is a 600-percent increase in her 
monthly out-of-pocket costs just for this drug alone. I don't know 
anybody who can afford $6,000 a month for one drug as a senior--as 
anyone. This is insane. She had to switch to another medication twice, 
but because they were infusions, she now has to travel 84 miles round 
trip to get treated. The significant jump in drug costs have affected 
both her pocketbook even her quality of life.
  This is unacceptable, and I have worked with my Senate colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, with Chairman Grassley's leadership, over the 
past year and a half since I have been in the Senate to bring down the 
costs of drugs and help Americans save more of their money.
  Senator Grassley's bill, of which I am proud to be an original 
cosponsor, does just that by holding Big Pharma companies accountable 
for exploiting loopholes and keeping pricing high for seniors, 
families, and taxpayers. Our bill pulls back the curtain on drug 
pricing and negotiations. It ends the sticker shock at the pharmacy 
counter, and it caps out-of-pocket costs for seniors so that Arizonans 
can afford the medicines they need.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, our Prescription Drug 
Pricing Reduction Act would save taxpayers close to $95 billion, reduce 
out-of-pocket spending by $72 billion, and reduce premiums by $1 
billion.
  This bill is even more important now that we are navigating a global 
pandemic and its subsequent economic challenges that are squeezing 
family and fixed-income senior budgets even more than in normal times. 
With over 17 million Americans unemployed--including many Arizonans--
along with the ever-looming threat of the coronavirus, affording 
prescription medicine should be the least of their concerns. Our bill 
would give Americans and Arizonans one less thing to worry about during 
these extraordinarily difficult and unprecedented times.
  Unfortunately, despite this bill receiving strong bipartisan support 
until just a few months ago, Democrats recently chose to walk away at 
the direction of their party's leadership, and they refused to join in 
on the reintroduction of this legislation that they coauthored. This 
happens only in DC.
  Just to be clear: They were for it before they were against it. This 
is maddening. This is why people all over my State are so frustrated 
with the dysfunction in this place, where people are willing to put 
looking for power and electoral politics ahead of what people need 
right now. Right now they need relief. They need relief to lower their 
out-of-pocket costs for all of the issues that they are facing as 
seniors, as families--any of the diagnoses, any of the conditions. 
These lifesaving and quality-of-life-improving medicines--we have to 
lower the costs, and now is the time to do it. Arizona patients and 
taxpayers and families and seniors need Washington to act now.
  I want to urge our Democratic colleagues to put politics aside. I 
know it is hard to do in an election year, but put it aside. Service 
before self--that is one of the core values I learned in the Air Force. 
I bring it here with me today.
  Serving others first--that is why you are here. Put those politics 
aside. Let's act to lower the out-of-pocket costs of prescription drugs 
in our upcoming coronavirus relief bill.
  This is a pivotal moment for action. We have to come together as a 
Congress to ensure hard-working Americans, their families, and seniors 
can access the treatments they need at an affordable cost.
  Let's pass this bill now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                                S. 4049

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise, together with the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, to talk about the chairman's plan to conclude 
the deliberations of the legislation before us today.
  As you well know from being in the committee, this was a process that 
was bipartisan, thoughtful, extremely well-orchestrated by the 
chairman, and we accomplished a great deal. As you know, the members of 
the committee--we considered literally hundreds of different amendments 
by the members as we marked up the legislation. Then we passed the bill 
out of committee, we brought it to the floor, and at that point, a 
total of 880 amendments were filed on the legislation--446 Republican 
amendments, 422 Democratic amendments, and 12 joint amendments. So we 
had a rich field to pick from in terms of trying to improve the 
legislation.
  The first substitute that was introduced on the floor to begin formal 
deliberation included a total of 79 amendments--34 Republican 
amendments, 34 Democratic amendments, and 11 joint amendments. Then we 
proceeded forward. Last week we came up with another unanimous consent 
to allow the votes that took place this week on several very important 
amendments, but in addition to that, we incorporated another 
legislative proposal including 62 amendments.
  So from the introduction of the bill to the floor and to this moment, 
we have adopted 141 amendments. They are bipartisan, both Democrats and 
Republicans. Now we are at the point--and the chairman, I believe, has 
a very thoughtful way to conclude the legislation--to consider another 
round of amendments and then be able to move to final passage very 
quickly.
  Again, let me conclude by saying that the chairman has done a 
remarkable job. I commend him for his bipartisanship, his 
thoughtfulness, and his consideration, and I am completely supportive 
of his proposal to bring this bill to a conclusion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, can I say Senator Reed has 
been incredibly great in this whole process. We have been working on 
this for a whole year now, and we are now to the point where tomorrow 
we should be able to pass it out of--it will not be passed at that 
time. We also have a conference we are going to have to be faced with 
and all that, but today and tomorrow morning are very important to us.
  The point that is made by Senator Reed--if you add up all the 
amendments, really, it is you guys in the Senate who have drafted this 
bill. Not only are there 141 amendments since we came out of the 
committee, but in

[[Page S4397]]

the committee, we had over 800 amendments that were part of the bill to 
start with.
  One of the reasons--and I think I speak for Senator Reed and myself 
at the same time. We have had some experiences in the past where, since 
the Senate operates with unanimous consent, we were unable to have any 
amendments at all on the floor. So in order to do that, to make sure--
if that should happen again, we wanted to make sure we had all these 
amendments already in the bill. So that was our starting point.
  Now, here is where we are today. We had a great vote on the NDAA, 
receiving an 87-to-13 vote in favor of ending debate on the substitute. 
That was great. That was today. That means we are at kind of the end of 
this process now. We have continued to work on another managers' 
package.
  Last night we hotlined--a lot of the people who may be watching are 
not familiar with the terminology. We hotlined--we sent out to all the 
Democrats and all the Republicans for any objections they might have--
another group of amendments. It was a large group, an equal number of 
amendments for Democrats and Republicans. It came back, and there were 
a lot of objections to it, so we have now taken that and started on one 
last managers' package that we are going to be--a modified version that 
we are going to hotline tonight.
  It is very important that people are listening right now. A lot of 
times people aren't listening. Certainly, the staffs should let their 
Members know that they are going to get a hotline on actually 40 
amendments--20 Democratic amendments, 20 Republican amendments--
tonight. That is going to be the hotline they are going to look at. 
Some of your staff and some of the Members may not have read these 
amendments yet. It is likely that is the case. If you have objections 
to amendments in this package--that is what we are hotlining--we 
encourage you to lodge those objections with the Cloakroom. That is 
when you get these things. That is going to be tonight. We will note 
those objections and see what remains.
  Tomorrow morning--let's say all the objections have come in. Tomorrow 
morning, at a time--we were hoping that time was going to be around 
10:30 tomorrow, but we know a lot of people want to talk; a lot of 
people want to be heard. We can't control that, but we will ask for 
unanimous consent to pass the package with a balanced number of 
amendments from both Democrats and Republicans. This is tomorrow, 
hopefully at 10:30, but maybe that will not work.
  We will require Members who want to object to this final package to 
come down to the floor in person and object. If you already have an 
objection to a specific amendment in this package registered with the 
Cloakroom, the amendment should have been pulled from the package. It 
will not even appear at that time. Otherwise, you need to be here to 
object in person.
  We use the term ``balanced.'' This is how this works. We have 40 
amendments that are going to be hotlined tonight. If the Republicans 
have eight of them that they object to and the Democrats have seven 
they object to, they have to find one more to object to so it ends up 
being eight and eight or so that the number will be equal. It sounds a 
little complicated and it sounds like something that might not work, 
but it will work. We have been doing this now for over a year. 
Actually, we started this process 2 years ago. So it is going to be the 
responsibility of the Democrats and the Republicans to make that even 
so that no one can say that it is biased to one side.
  So all of that is what is going to happen, and it is very important 
that staff and Members be aware of that because what we don't want to 
happen is to have someone come along and say they were not aware of 
this process that is in place. So that is the process we are going to 
use, and that is one that is fair.
  Again, I don't think--and this will be the 60th consecutive year. 
There has never been a year, in my memory, that has had more amendments 
considered than we have considered this year.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

                          ____________________