[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 22, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4399-S4414]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                                S. 4049

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise tonight to speak about a provision 
of the National Defense Authorization Act that would direct the 
renaming of military bases and facilities that are currently named for 
those who voluntarily fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War.
  I thank Senator Warren for offering the amendment, and I particularly 
thank her for making adjustments to the amendment to accommodate 
concerns of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I was proud to 
cosponsor the revised amendment in committee and speak in favor of it 
today.
  It is important to state clearly what this amendment will do. If it 
passes and survives a threatened Presidential veto, it will require the 
Department of Defense to initiate a 3-year process to change the name 
of any military base, barracks, or other facility named after a 
Confederate military leader. Why 3 years? The timing is designed to 
allow a full public process in each location so that the desires of the 
community leaders can be taken into account in choosing new names.
  I state with clarity the substance of the amendment because one of my 
colleagues took the floor earlier this month to oppose the amendment, 
and he obscured its purpose in describing it, only saying that it 
required that ``some of the names of our Nation's military bases must 
be removed.'' He neglected to mention that the amendment specifically 
sought change only to facilities named for Confederates. In fact, he 
did not mention the Confederacy or the Civil War at all.
  If you are unwilling to be plain about what is at stake, it portrays 
a weakness in your position. So let me be plain. I speak today because 
I am a Senator from the State with the most at stake in this 
discussion. Three of the ten bases whose names must be changed under 
this amendment are in Virginia. Virginia was the State whose people 
were most affected by the Civil War, and I served as its 70th Governor. 
My hometown of Richmond was the capital of the Confederacy, and I 
served as its 76th mayor. I have dealt with issues of Civil War names, 
statues, memorials, battlefields, and buildings throughout my 26 years 
in public life. Based on decades of grappling with this question, I 
want to describe a principle, explain an epiphany, and finally pose a 
question.
  First, a principle: If you declare war on the United States, take up 
arms against it, and kill U.S. troops, you should not have a U.S. 
military base named after you.
  If you declare war on the United States, take up arms against it, and 
kill U.S. troops, you should not have a U.S. military base named after 
you.
  This principle is nowhere stated in law because it need not be. It is 
a basic commonsense principle. The principle explains why we have no 
Fort Cornwallis, Fort Benedict Arnold, Fort Santa Ana, Fort Von 
Hindenburg, Fort Tojo, Fort Ho Chi Minh
  If you declare war on the United States, take up arms against it, and 
kill U.S. troops, you should not have a U.S. military base named after 
you, but we make an exception. Ten bases and many other military 
facilities are named after Confederate leaders who declared war on the 
United States, took up arms against it, and killed U.S. troops. Even 
further, they took these actions to destroy the United States, to tear 
our country in half so that the seceding Southern States could continue 
to own those of African descent as slaves--a species of property--
rather than treating them as equal human beings. Is this worthy of 
honor? Does it justify an exception to the sound principle that I 
describe?
  Why were these 10 bases so named when they were constructed in the 
years before and during the First and Second World Wars? The names were 
not chosen due to the military skill of the Confederate leaders. Some 
are revered for their prowess, but some are reviled. The names were not 
chosen to honor the character of the 10 leaders. Some are respected--
excepting the blight on character that support for slavery confers--but 
others were not

[[Page S4400]]

distinguished in their behavior or their integrity. The record makes 
clear that the 10 bases were named for Confederate leaders upon their 
construction during the First and Second World Wars because of a 
lingering belief in their cause--dividing the Nation to uphold slavery 
and White supremacy.
  In the days of mandated segregation, a vibrant Ku Klux Klan, popular 
culture painting a false picture of the war and its aftermath with 
films like ``The Birth of a Nation'' and ``Gone with the Wind,'' there 
was a powerful desire to hold up the Confederate cause, to sanitize the 
Confederate cause and deny the reality of African-American suffering. 
That desire even affected this very body during those years, as the 
Senate repeatedly used the filibuster to block Federal anti-lynching 
legislation.
  It is clear now, as it has been clear for a very long time, that the 
cause of the Confederacy was not just but monstrous. Destroying the 
Nation to preserve slavery would have been a catastrophe.
  History can't be rewritten, and it is important to tell it, but 
choosing who to honor is another matter entirely. I repeat a principle 
that I believe brooks no exception: If you declare war on the United 
States, take up arms against it, and kill U.S. troops, you should not 
have a U.S. military base named after you.
  This wisdom was understood immediately in the aftermath of the Civil 
War by Robert E. Lee. He was asked about memorials to the Confederacy 
and stated: ``I think it wiser not to keep open the sores of war but to 
follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the 
marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.'' 
This amendment is consistent with Lee's wise observation.
  Second, let me explain an epiphany that I have had just in the last 
few months. When I moved to Virginia to get married in 1984, I saw the 
Confederate statues in Richmond, and I was puzzled. As a Kansas-raised 
civil rights lawyer and then later as a local elected official in a 
city that was majority African American, I was struck by their 
continued prominence. But together with the leadership of my diverse 
city, we viewed these statues and other symbols of the Confederacy as 
painful symbols of an incomplete past--painful because of the reality 
of slavery and discrimination, which have warped our Commonwealth and 
country since 1619, and incomplete as well. Where were the statues to 
Richmond heroes from the revolution or the civil rights movement? Why 
did our city highlight 4 years out of a 250-year history and downplay 
everything else?
  My generation of Richmond leaders endeavored to solve this problem by 
painting a more complete picture--statues of Arthur Ashe, Abraham 
Lincoln, Maggie Walker, a civil rights memorial on our capitol grounds, 
new municipal buildings, courts, schools, many named after prominent 
African Americans, women leaders. Aging bridges that had been named for 
Confederate generals were eventually replaced and named for civil 
rights heroes.
  In short, we viewed this problem as one that could be solved with a 
path of addition--not replacing the painful symbols of the past but 
instead adding to our built environment the recognition of people and 
eras that had not previously been honored. This was necessary and 
important work. I was proud to play my part in it during my 16 years in 
local and State service.

  But in recent months, as I spent our extended April quarantine in 
Richmond and I talked to people about whether Confederate statues on 
our Monument Avenue should be removed, I learned something. When I 
refer to these statues as symbols of a painful past, again and again, I 
was told: Tim, you might see these statues as signifying a painful 
past, but we see them as signs of a painful present and even predictors 
of a difficult future.
  This sort of stopped me in my tracks. I asked my friends to explain. 
Here is a composite of what they told me: If honoring these 
Confederates were just about the past, that would be one thing. But 
these statues are honored in the present by a city and State that 
maintain them, spotlight them, emphasize their beauty, and market their 
appeal to tourists. In the present, these statues become a rallying 
point for neo-Confederates and others who would take us back, just as 
occurred in Charlottesville in 2017.
  The present is pretty frightening. African Americans are dying of 
COVID at disproportionate rates. The job losses in this economic 
collapse are falling so hard on African-American communities. We see 
scenes of police violence against African Americans playing endlessly 
on our televisions, and we don't see an immediate end to these 
disparities.
  Do you really expect us to believe that a society that continues to 
honor those who tried to destroy our country to save slavery will be 
serious about ending the racial disparities that exist today? You 
either support the equality of all or you don't. If you honor those who 
opposed our equality--indeed, opposed the very notion of our humanity--
what hope can we have about overcoming the real-time injustices that 
are manifest all around us?
  I thank God I can still learn some new things at age 62. In my view, 
the statues and base names and the other Confederate honorifics that 
dot the American landscape have been about the past. But I now see 
that, for so many, they raise deep and troubling questions about the 
present and the future. Are we committed to the equality of all--the 
moral North Star announced by Jefferson in the Declaration of 
Independence and reconfirmed by Lincoln at Gettysburg? If we continue 
to honor men who fought to deprive those of African descent of their 
equality, we signal that we are not committed to our most fundamental 
American value.
  Finally, there are questions for those, including the President, who 
attack those who want to remove Confederate names from military bases 
or take down Confederate statues.
  When you saw young Germans in 1989 spray graffiti on the Berlin Wall 
and knock it down, how did you feel? I know how you felt. You felt good 
to see people standing up to leaders and saying: You will no longer 
divide us.
  When you saw people throughout the Soviet bloc pulling down statues 
of Stalin and Lenin after the collapse of the Soviet Union or Iraqis 
pulling down statues of Saddam Hussein, how did you feel? I know how 
you felt. You felt good to see people standing and saying with their 
actions: We will no longer glorify tyrants who oppressed us.
  When you see hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers in the streets 
protesting against the Chinese Government, how do you feel? I know how 
you feel because I heard you, even in this Chamber. You feel good 
seeing everyday people standing up against a government that would 
deprive them of their basic freedom.
  Well, if you feel that way--and I believe virtually all Americans 
do--how can we feel otherwise about patriotic Americans who believe in 
a nation committed to the equality of all when they stand up and say: 
We will not be divided. We will not glorify those who oppressed us. We 
will not honor those who stood against our freedom. That is what our 
people, especially our young people, are saying to us now. Supporting 
this amendment will show them that we are listening.
  In conclusion, we Americans have grown as a nation and as a people 
since the Civil War. And we have grown as a nation and as a people 
since the first half of the 20th century when, in very different 
circumstances, it was still seen as a good idea to honor the 
Confederacy.
  One of the key areas of our growth--admittedly a progress of fits and 
starts--has been a greater acceptance of others, regardless of race or 
religion or sexual orientation or gender or nationality or physical 
ability. Thank God for that growth. Of course, the evidence all around 
shows that we still have a long way to go to reach full equality. It 
might be like the North Star. We can steer by it, but it is not in the 
capacity of mortal mankind to reach it.
  But when we do steer by it and step in its direction, we become 
better. That is what this amendment will accomplish, and it is why I so 
strongly support it
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                        Prescription Drug Costs

  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, Americans are facing extremely challenging

[[Page S4401]]

times, and, right now, folks are working hard just to make ends meet to 
put food on their table and to care for their families and their loved 
ones.
  As our communities continue to grapple with the devastating impacts 
of the coronavirus pandemic, the crisis of rising drug costs in the 
United States has only worsened. Now, more than ever, folks are 
operating on very thin margins and simply don't have room in their 
budgets for expensive prescriptions.
  No individual should have to make the decision between filling a 
lifesaving prescription and feeding their family. The skyrocketing 
costs of prescription drugs have become a matter of life and death for 
so many. We have heard the heartbreaking stories of individuals who 
could not afford their insulin, who were forced to ration and skip 
doses, and, as a result, they lost their lives.
  I remember quite vividly a conversation I had with an Iowa mother 
explaining how she lost her son who, as a young man, was rationing his 
insulin because he could not afford to do more. It was a heartbreaking 
discussion, and having that discussion with that mother, I could not 
help but think then of my own brother and sister who have been reliant 
on insulin as juvenile diabetics for nearly all of their lives. When we 
talk about the cost of prescription drugs, lives are literally on the 
line.
  Iowans have been very clear with me where they stand on this issue. 
They want to see us come together to advance solutions that drive down 
those drug prices. Seniors, families, and children all need to be 
assured that when they go to the pharmacy, they will be able to afford 
their medications and not have to skip a meal--or more--to do so.
  This is why I was proud to join my friend and my colleague, Senator 
Grassley, in introducing a piece of legislation that I know he has 
worked tirelessly on--the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act of 
2020. This vital piece of legislation would root out unfair pricing 
shenanigans and perverse payment incentives that allow pharmaceutical 
companies to take advantage of the system at the expense of taxpayers 
and patients.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill would save 
taxpayers $95 billion with a ``b,'' reduce out-of-pocket expenses by 
$72 billion with a ``b,'' and reduce premiums by $1 billion with a 
``b.''
  It needs to be said that Chairman Grassley worked for months on end 
to craft this bill in a bipartisan manner with his Democratic 
counterparts. In fact, two-thirds of the Senate Finance Committee 
approved our bipartisan Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act a year 
ago this very month--two-thirds of the Senate Finance Committee. Yet, 
at a time when Americans are struggling to afford rent and groceries, 
my colleagues across the aisle suddenly chose to drop their support for 
this bipartisan drug pricing reform bill that they helped write.
  Let me make that clear. The Democrats helped write the bill with 
Senator Grassley. Those who sat on the Finance Committee approved this 
bill last year.
  This year, they are refusing to assist my senior Senator, Chuck 
Grassley, in moving forward a bill they helped write. That begs the 
question: What changed over the course of one year? Do you know what, 
folks? That is exactly what happened. It was the year: 2020 is an 
election year, and that means Washington is not focused on solutions; 
it is all about the political scoreboard.
  We have seen it already this year with our friends across the aisle 
blocking us from even debating the JUSTICE Act, the police reform bill 
that contained about 70 percent of what our Democratic colleagues were 
asking for in police reform.
  Iowans put their partisanship aside and came together and got a 
police reform package passed; that is, Iowans in our State legislature. 
I wish we could say the same for Washington, not only on the JUSTICE 
Act but also this prescription drug pricing bill. Lowering prescription 
drug costs shouldn't be about who gets the credit. It should be about 
working across the aisle to save lives, which is the very reason that 
Senator Grassley worked hand in hand with Democrats on this bill.
  Iowans should expect more from Washington. They want more, and they 
should get it.
  Chairman Grassley, President Trump, and I will not back down from 
this fight. We will press on and do everything in our power to provide 
relief to Americans who desperately need it. I will continue to call on 
my Democratic colleagues to come to the table to work on improving our 
Nation's healthcare system and drive down the costs for Americans. 
Whether it is lowering drug costs, expanding childcare options for 
families, ensuring protections for individuals with preexisting 
conditions, like my sister and my brother, or simply making sure that 
children have access to clean diapers--simple things. These are all 
issues that Americans want to see Congress take action on.
  Just recently, I joined with my colleague Senator Braun of Indiana in 
introducing a bill that helps address yet another critical issue for 
Americans--increasing transparency and lowering healthcare costs.
  Our Healthcare PRICE Transparency Act would implement the 
administration's rules requiring hospitals and insurers to reveal their 
low, discounted prices and negotiated rates to patients before they 
receive medical care. Iowans should be able to know the costs 
associated with their healthcare in advance so they can make the best 
decisions for themselves and for their families.
  Folks, let's not forget that, outside the Halls of Congress, 
Americans are facing hard times. They are mourning the loss of loved 
ones who have been taken by this virus. They are worried about how they 
will take care of their children at home while they work to provide. 
They are concerned for their health and the well-being of their loved 
ones. Many of them are considering skipping a dose of their medication 
or cutting a pill in half to try to make those prescriptions stretch 
just a little bit further until their next paychecks.
  Let's put aside political interests. Let's work together on this. I 
will be standing at the ready, and it is my sincere hope that my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in this effort.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered


                    The Great American Outdoors Act

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, 6 weeks ago, I stood here as the Senate 
prepared to begin deliberating historic conservation legislation--the 
Great American Outdoors Act. I introduced this legislation with Senator 
Manchin, of West Virginia, along with so many other bipartisan 
champions for the outdoors and our public lands. Senators Daines, 
Portman, Warner, Alexander, King, Cantwell, Burr, and Heinrich are just 
a few of the champions who helped to shepherd this historic legislation 
through this Chamber. I remarked on that day that it was not often the 
Senate had a chance to make history, but, indeed, history we made.
  The Senate came together in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion and 
passed the Great American Outdoors Act 73 to 25, and just moments ago, 
the U.S. House of Representatives joined us in making history by 
passing the Great American Outdoors Act with a vote of 310 to 107.
  This legislation is headed today to the desk of the President of the 
United States for his signature. The President has already supported 
the bill, noting the nature of this historic bill and the huge 
conservation victory that it is.
  In the weeks since Senate passage, I have traveled all over the great 
State of Colorado and have visited with land management officials, 
professionals, stakeholders, and constituents to discuss what the Great 
American Outdoors Act will really mean on the ground on a personal, 
local level for Colorado and Colorado's public lands. I would like to 
share some of those stories with you today.
  Here we have a picture of an amphitheater that is outside of the 
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park. If you would just go a 
little bit further to the right, you would actually be in the canyon.

[[Page S4402]]

  This is an amphitheater that was built, basically, in the 1960s. The 
park itself is now about 20 years old. It had over 430,000 people visit 
it last year. It has a deferred maintenance backlog of $7.7 million, 
and this South Rim Amphitheater facility is part of that backlog. It is 
currently being used, but it needs significant upgrades. If you 
actually sat on one of those benches, you probably wouldn't be able to 
sit anywhere else for quite a long time because of the splinters and 
the gouges that you would receive from the shards of wood that are on 
those benches, and there are electrical outlets that are popping up 
from an old projection system.
  This is supposed to be used for education and educational 
opportunities. With the right improvements, they will be able to 
restore this and get it back to its original purpose. New park benches 
and electrical work are among just a bit of this amphitheater's needs--
a $200,000 deferred maintenance project alone, this site for education 
for experiential learning. Within the rest of the park, there are 
millions more in maintenance projects like this one that need to be 
performed and carried out.
  Our lands are busy. People are loving them. This is one example, and 
it is one example of a project that will be completed thanks to the 
Great American Outdoors Act. Yet it is not just national parks that 
have maintenance needs.
  Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue joined me in Colorado in mid-
June, and we toured the Mizpah Campground, which is in the Arapahoe and 
Roosevelt National Forests, that has been closed for a decade. This is 
a beautiful river, and the campground is back here. There is only one 
problem: There is no bridge. This river wiped out the culvert and the 
bridge a decade ago. This is a campground without access because, 10 
years ago--a decade ago--a flood came through--high water came 
through--and wiped out the access. You can't even use this public 
facility because of a decades-long maintenance backlog at this facility 
alone.
  The Great American Outdoors Act will provide line-of-sight funding 
for projects like these, which will no longer have to compete for a 
small pool of funding with every other national forest in the country.
  When I talk to these professionals--when I talk to the forest rangers 
and the park superintendents--they talk about how they are able to 
accomplish building structures in their parks, how they are able to 
build campgrounds in their parks, and how they are able to keep up with 
restroom facilities, but they have had no line-of-sight funding for 
additional help down the road. This means that, as the facilities age, 
they may just have to be closed or, in this case, as access gets wiped 
out, you will just never regain that access. What a loss to the 
American people that is, but what a benefit to the American people the 
Great American Outdoors Act will become.
  It is not just the national parks or the national forests or the 
Bureau of Land Management that will benefit from the Great American 
Outdoors Act. This is a picture of the Runyon Sports Complex in Pueblo, 
CO. This area has a number of ballparks from little leagues to adult 
leagues. In fact, they just had their first pitch of the season last 
week--a day that I was actually at the Runyon Sports Complex in Pueblo, 
CO, to kick off a tournament to celebrate the beginning of a season 
that had been much delayed thanks to COVID-19.
  This area saw people like Pee Wee Reese play baseball and Babe Ruth 
visit this same area to play baseball. Now Coloradans of every 
generation are able to go to the Runyon Sports Complex and enjoy it. It 
has become a regional draw to help benefit the city economically and to 
teach kids about sports and teamwork. That is what this means.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund, yes, helps forests and parks, 
but 40 percent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund's funding is 
dedicated to projects at the State and local levels. If you grew up on 
the Front Range of Colorado and played baseball, the odds are good that 
you will have spent some time on the field at Runyon or at any other 
number of places that have been funded by a Land and Water Conservation 
Fund project. Runyon has received over $100,000 in LWCF funding over 
the years, and the complex continues to be a vital part of the 
community today.
  The LWCF is not just about our public lands; it is about your local 
ballpark, about your local swimming pool, about playground facilities, 
and urban parks that otherwise wouldn't give minority communities 
access to recreation. That is what it is about.
  Just up the road from Runyon Field, in El Paso County, CO, and the 
communities within them, they have benefited greatly from the LWCF. We 
visited a project in El Paso County that received hundreds of thousands 
of dollars. It is a county that has received $5 million in funding over 
the years and has provided benefits for everything from building parks 
to tennis courts and trails. The State has received over $2 million in 
funding to improve the Cheyenne Mountain State Park facilities within 
El Paso County, CO.
  Local, regional, and State outdoor recreation projects will only 
further benefit when the Great American Outdoors Act is signed into 
law. With the Great American Outdoors Act, Congress is finally 
fulfilling its commitment to fully and permanently fund the LWCF, which 
will benefit every State in the Nation.
  The passage of this historic legislation could not come at a more 
critical time. Our economy has suffered during the coronavirus 
pandemic, and stay-at-home orders have kept Americans cooped up indoors 
for the last several months. Millions of people and families are facing 
uncertain futures. Will school return in the fall? Will my business 
survive this challenging time? Will I receive my next paycheck?
  When the first waves of the virus hit and shutdown orders went into 
place, some of Colorado's mountain towns and rural areas were the 
hardest and first hit. Community restaurants closed; hotels emptied; 
and their stores' doors were closed to visitors. These are challenging 
times, no doubt, but one glimmer of hope will always be our public 
lands and the great outdoors
  This Nation does not have Republican or Democratic public lands. This 
is not a partisan issue. Preserving and taking care of our public lands 
provides a benefit to the entire country, and it will provide a benefit 
for generations to come.
  Yet, not only is this legislation about preserving and protecting our 
lands, it is also about job creation and economic recovery--more hope 
for the people of this country. Passing the Great American Outdoors Act 
will create over 100,000 jobs by addressing the park maintenance 
backlog alone. In my home State of Colorado, it will create thousands 
of jobs across the State as the mission of the Great American Outdoors 
Act is fulfilled. There will be more jobs created as the work begins to 
address maintenance projects on other Federal lands. The Forest 
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, our National Wildlife Refuges, 
and the Bureau of Indian Education's schools all have needs that will 
be addressed by this legislation. These will be important opportunities 
to create jobs when the projects are finally and fully funded.
  I mentioned this statistic quite a bit during the consideration of 
the Great American Outdoors Act here in the Senate. For every $1 
million we spend on the Land and Water Conservation Fund, it supports 
between 16 and 30 jobs. That is a figure above and beyond the 100,000 
jobs that we created by the parks' provisions of the legislation alone. 
This is a bill that will put people to work. It is a bill that will put 
people to work by building playgrounds, fixing trails, cleaning up 
ballparks, and protecting our iconic landscapes for generations to 
come.
  This is a bill that reminds us that our communities and our shared, 
public outdoor spaces are worth investing in. It is a bill that reminds 
people that we have hope for America. It is a bill that reminds people 
that your public lands are waiting for you and that Congress was able 
to come together, during these trying times, in a bipartisan fashion 
that was so strong and so great that you will be able to enjoy the 
great American outdoors the way they were meant to be enjoyed.
  I am pleased that the House of Representatives affirmed all of this 
by passing the Great American Outdoors

[[Page S4403]]

Act today with such a strong, bipartisan vote. I thank my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers for their hard work and 
dedication to passing this historic conservation legislation.
  I look forward to the President's signing this bill in the days 
ahead. I look forward to getting out into the great outdoors, and I 
look forward to these lands as they continue to inspire the hopes and 
dreams of kids and adults alike for generations to come.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, before the Senator from Colorado leaves 
the floor, I offer to him my congratulations for his inspired 
leadership of the Great American Outdoors Act.
  This is something that good people on both sides of the aisle have 
worked on, literally, for as much as a half a century. Now, people are 
used to politicians who exaggerate, but that is no exaggeration, 
because I have been around along enough to know and to understand 
that--first, with the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which was first 
enacted by Congress in 1964. I was the chairman of President Reagan's 
Commission on American Outdoors and reiterated support for that in 
1986. Senator Gardner, Senator Daines, Senator Portman, Senator Warner, 
Senator Heinrich, Senator Manchin, Senator Cantwell, and a whole parade 
of Senators on both sides of the aisle have worked very hard to make 
this happen.
  And it would not have happened without President Trump's leadership, 
either. We would not have been able to spend the money the way that it 
is spent--energy exploration money for conservation purposes--unless 
the President's Office of Management and Budget had approved that.
  So it is usually never true that an important piece of legislation is 
passed by a single Senator. It is usually a parade of Senators. But 
Senator Gardner has been leading the parade, and I congratulate him for 
that and salute him on behalf of all of us who want to see our national 
parks--the 419 different places we have, from the Great Smokies to the 
Rocky Mountains, to Yellowstone, to Pearl Harbor, to the National 
Mall--protected, as well as our national forests, our national wildlife 
refuges, as well as the permanent funding for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
  So I wanted to have an opportunity to say that before he left the 
floor.
  And I see my friend Senator Portman from Ohio here, who really, along 
with Senator Warner of Virginia, began the work on the other part of 
the bill--the bill that would take money from energy exploration and 
reduce the national park backlog by half over 5 years. That had the 
support, combined with the Land and Water Conservation Fund, of more 
than 800 different outdoor recreation, conservation, and environmental 
groups, as well as the President.
  People will say: Well, that was easy to do with all that support.
  It wasn't easy to do. If it had been easy to do, it would have 
happened 20 or 30 years ago. So it took support from the Senator from 
North Dakota and leadership from the Senator from Ohio and Senator 
Warner from Virginia, especially.
  I came to the floor also to talk about something else, but I see the 
Senator from Ohio so I think I will yield the floor and then speak on 
the other subject after he has a chance to speak, if he would like to.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Tennessee for 
focusing on the American Great Outdoors Act. I had come to the floor to 
talk about the COVID-19 legislation we are considering, but I am very 
pleased to be here with my colleagues who helped to get this 
legislation across the finish line. It is incredibly important and 
truly historic for our national parks.
  I have spent more than a dozen years on this. It is kind of 
embarrassing because I wasn't very successful for the first 11, but 
from my days as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, I 
have been focused on what really is a tragic situation--about a $12 
billion now maintenance backlog in our national parks, far more than 
the parks could ever afford to take care of based on our annual budgets 
that we provide them from this place and yet something that had to be 
done.
  So it is not very exciting for some people to think about, gosh, 
fixing a visitor's center or making sure a trail isn't eroding into a 
river, making sure that our roads and bridges in our national parks are 
kept up to speed, so that when you go to a national park you can 
actually use the restroom facilities and the lodges. But we have had a 
huge problem with finding funding for that, and in this legislation, as 
was noted by my colleague from Tennessee, who has been at this for many 
years, as well, we are finally doing something to help our parks that 
is badly needed.
  The priority projects--$6.5 billion worth--will now be handled by 
legislation that passed the House today by a 310-to-107 vote and passed 
the Senate a few weeks ago. The President has agreed to sign it, and it 
will keep our promise, and it is a debt unpaid to our parks. Without 
it, future generations wouldn't have the opportunity to visit and enjoy 
these incredible treasures.
  I spent the last few weeks at a couple of our national parks--one, 
the Charles Young home in Ohio, which is a beautiful historic home that 
is actually a station on the Underground Railroad and, therefore, has 
particular and very important historic significance for our State. 
Charles Young was the first Black colonel in the U.S. Army, the first 
Black superintendent of a national park, and his home needs to be 
preserved for future generations. And yet the maintenance backlog is 
huge there, as you can imagine, and without this legislation, they 
would not be able to make progress.
  I got to see specifically what the money is going for, which is 
making sure that house still stands years from now so that people, 
particularly young people in our community, can understand the history 
of our country--the good and the bad, the cooperation and the seeking 
for freedom that came from the Underground Railroad and the incredible 
leadership that Charles Young showed as an early African-American 
pioneer, both in the military and in our national park system.
  And then I was at the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, where I had the 
opportunity to see the 13th most visited park in America and a number 
of different needs that they have, adding up to about $50 million. 
Their annual budget, by the way, is about $11 million, and yet they 
have $50 million worth of things that have to be fixed.
  I saw trails literally falling into the river. I saw railroad tracks 
for the beautiful scenic railroad that runs through there where the 
tracks have to be replaced. I saw a bridge that is truly becoming 
dangerous and has to be fixed--an historic bridge. These are things 
that can't be done with their normal budget that funds the rangers and 
some programs. These are capital expenses, things that have to have a 
separate funding source, the way we budget around here, and we are 
doing that now.
  So after many years of trying different efforts at this and finding 
some success over the years--the Centennial Act has helped a little bit 
and some other things to get private-public partnership money--we now 
have the ability to really say that the parks are going to be in good 
shape for our kids, our grandkids, and the future generations that can 
enjoy what Lamar Alexander has referred to--I think, paraphrasing Ken 
Burns--as America's best idea.
  With that, I yield back. I would like some time in a moment to talk 
about the COVID-19 legislation, but I would like to yield now to the 
Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his 
courtesy, as well as his leadership. I will not be long.
  (The remarks of Mr. Alexander pertaining to the introduction of S. 
4284 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, the legislation that Senator Alexander is 
talking about probably is something we ought to look at in connection 
with this legislation that we are likely to pass here in the Congress 
in the next week or so regarding the COVID-19 crisis that we face. I am 
here on the floor

[[Page S4404]]

today to talk about that--to talk about what the next steps ought to be 
and how we should be responding as Congress to this unprecedented 
challenge we have of the pandemic.
  We are now about 5 months into it, and for much of April and 
certainly in the month of May we were seeing pretty good progress on 
the coronavirus pandemic. The situation was improving, and many of us 
thought we were turning the corner. Unfortunately, as we have moved 
into June and July, we are now trending in the wrong direction in much 
of the country. Over the past week, the number of hospitalizations, for 
instance, has risen in many of our States, and there is concern that 
the situation could worsen when the weather begins to cool.
  Today, in Ohio, our Governor announced a statewide mask mandate, as 
an example. We have not had that yet. He did so because he is concerned 
about some of the numbers. Ohio is not in as bad a shape as some of the 
States, but we are not seeing the progress we hoped for.
  The past few months have been a somewhat better story for the 
economy. After the initial shocks of the self-imposed economic shutdown 
this past spring, a couple months ago, we have seen a steady rebound 
taking place in most parts of the country. New unemployment claims, put 
out just last week, while still far too high compared to where we were 
before this pandemic, are the lowest we have seen since the crisis 
began. Recent retail sales numbers are about where they were a year ago 
when there was no pandemic. So we are seeing better improvement in the 
economy as compared to the disappointing progress we were making 
recently on the pandemic
  Thanks to unprecedented Federal action, such as the Paycheck 
Protection Program which has allowed small businesses to keep their 
doors open and to retain employees, thanks to some of the targeted tax 
relief to help our families and also our businesses, we have been able 
to prevent an even more serious economic collapse that in my view would 
have had a devastating impact on all of us. However, we are not out of 
the woods yet. There are still, roughly, 17 million Americans out of 
work. That is a lot of Americans who have been furloughed through no 
fault of their own because businesses are not operating. This 
corresponds to about an 11-percent unemployment rate, more than three 
times higher than it was just 5 months ago.
  You will recall that in February we had historically low 
unemployment. Now we are up to 11 percent. Of course, there are parts 
of the economy that have not seen the progress that other parts have.
  So there is a lot for us to consider now that Congress is back in 
session and now that we are in the middle of negotiating this new what 
they call the phase 5 coronavirus rescue package. The new legislation 
will have a significant impact on how we address these dual healthcare 
and economic crises. That is why it is important, and more important 
than ever, that we figure out how to work together, Republicans and 
Democrats alike, and make some smart bipartisan policy decisions.
  Unfortunately, that is not the way the House of Representatives has 
proceeded to date. The House Democrats chose to construct their own 
proposal. It is called the Heroes Act. Rather than working 
constructively across the aisle to try to find some common ground to 
help Americans deal with this healthcare and economic crisis, Democrats 
chose and made and released an 1,800-page, $3.5 trillion package that 
included some provisions that have nothing to do with COVID-19.
  How big is $3.5 trillion? Well, that makes it the biggest piece of 
legislation ever passed by either the House or Senate in the history of 
our country. Never have we had legislation that expensive. Also, $3.5 
trillion is just a lot of money. The budget last year was $4.5 
trillion--the entire budget for the entire year for our country. This 
one bill is $3.5 trillion. So it is not only the most costly 
legislation ever to pass, but, again, it is not just about COVID-19. In 
fact, one Democratic leader called it ``a tremendous opportunity to fix 
things to fit our vision,'' which is why it passed by a nearly party-
line vote.
  If true, by the way, that vision entails raising taxes on some small 
businesses; it includes giving out tax breaks, largely to benefit very 
wealthy individuals on both coasts; it has direct payouts to illegal 
immigrants; it has immigration reforms related to ICE and other things; 
it has unprecedented mandates on the States to require mail-in voting 
and telling States, by the way, that they are required to have certain 
kinds of ID. This has always been within the province of the States to 
run their own election systems. That is in this legislation.
  At the same time, out of $3.5 trillion and 1,800 pages, there is 
nothing in it to provide liability protection to our schools, 
hospitals, and small businesses; no funding for the Paycheck Protection 
Program; no assistance for Americans trying to get back to work. It is 
$3.5 trillion in taxpayer money being appropriated on a party-line 
vote. I don't think that is what people are looking for. I think they 
want us to get together, as we have already with four previous COVID-19 
legislative packages, and work together to try to get it done. We have 
to find that common ground.
  We have to be sure we pass something that is bipartisan, that 
supports our healthcare system, our schools, our local governments, our 
employers, our families, and that we do it in as targeted a way as 
possible given the fact that we have already the largest deficit in the 
history of our country this year, and, of course, all this adding to 
our national debt.
  We need to do it based on good data on what has been spent and what 
remains to be done. We need to keep in mind what is the most important 
policy proposals to include in this legislation and not make it a 
catchall.
  First, and most importantly in my view, we need to increase funding 
for the healthcare response and the safety efforts. This is the 
underlying problem: Until we focus on this pandemic and what the virus 
is doing, we can spend all the money we want around here, and it is not 
going to make much of a difference. So we have to be sure that we are 
focused on the actual problem. I think that means getting our 
healthcare professionals the resources they need to effectively respond 
to this crisis. They need more funding. We need more funding for 
testing, contact tracing, PPE--the personal protective gear that, 
unfortunately, we still don't have the stockpiles here that we need. We 
need to be sure we are doing everything we can do to get this antiviral 
medication up and going. We have one, Remdesivir, that is 
showing positive results. We need to make sure that we are doing 
everything we can to get this vaccine as fast as possible because with 
a vaccine, as we have with the common flu, we will be making tremendous 
progress in pushing back against the virus. Stopping the spread of the 
virus has to be our top priority in this next bill, as it has been in 
some of the other legislation.

  It is clear from the recent resurgence in cases that we are still not 
where we need to be in testing. I know there has been a lot of 
discussion recently about testing and whether it is needed or not. I 
will tell you it is critical because we need to know where the disease 
is and how it may be spreading. It also gives us much greater context 
in taking steps toward reopening in a safe way, whether it is our 
schools or whether it is our businesses, going to restaurants, going to 
bowling allies, movie theaters. Testing is very important.
  Last week, I was in Columbus, OH, at the Columbus Health Department, 
where officials told me what a huge difference the CARES grant that 
they received has made in being able to expand testing. They are 
building a track to monitor and maintain the virus in Franklin County 
that is needed right now, and they are doing a great job. They are 
providing testing that is driveby testing. It is easy to access. If you 
don't have insurance to pay for it, it is covered through CARES funding 
that passed in the Congress. We are being sure that the funding is 
providing the best information available as we fight this invisible 
enemy. We have to continue to do that to prioritize bolstering the 
ability of our healthcare officials at home and to be able to 
coordinate the response--State level, local and national levels, and 
testing, obviously, is key to that.
  In addition, as more parts of our country are putting in place safe 
plans to reopen our economy, we want to

[[Page S4405]]

make sure that the individuals who went on the COVID-19 unemployment 
lines in the early days of this pandemic have the opportunity and the 
incentive to reenter the workforce. We have to be sure our workplaces 
are safe.
  This week, I introduced legislation called the healthy workplace tax 
credit, a credit on payroll taxes to ensure employers can afford 
additional safety measures, from the Plexiglas you have probably seen 
in some places, the shields to be able to protect people, to the PPE 
that is needed, the gowns in some cases, the masks, the gloves, hand 
sanitizer, to be able to afford that, and to be sure that there is 
testing in place so employees and consumers feel safe reentering the 
economy. This tax credit will support our efforts to make our 
workplaces healthy and safe and to build consumer confidence that all 
appropriate measures are being taken.
  It doesn't really matter what we say as elected officials. It doesn't 
matter what our Governors are saying or local health officials. If 
people don't feel safe or feel comfortable, they are not going to 
reengage in the economy and step forward. I think this kind of a tax 
credit should be something that both sides of the aisle can strongly 
support, and we can ensure that we are doing everything we can to get 
people back to a more normal life.
  As we tackle this healthcare challenge head-on, we also can't afford 
to step back on our efforts to combat the drug epidemic. Remember the 
opioid crisis that we were facing over the last couple of years. It has 
devastated communities all around our country, including my home State 
of Ohio. Unfortunately, we are seeing, during the coronavirus pandemic, 
the number of addictions, overdoses, and overdose deaths is growing. 
This is very concerning, particularly because, thanks to a lot of 
efforts, including efforts in this body, to provide more treatment and 
recovery and prevention services, we were finally making progress in 
2018. In my State of Ohio we had a 22-percent decrease in opioid 
overdose deaths. Every single year for the previous dozen years we had 
seen increases, and, finally, we were making progress. Now, 
unfortunately, we seem to be backtracking because of the COVID-19 
crisis.
  People are isolated, and people are feeling anxiety. People are not 
being able to access the treatment they used to be able to access. So 
in this legislation, we should also be sure that we make permanent the 
progress we have made recently with coronavirus in providing more 
telehealth treatment, making that more accessible. I have introduced 
legislation called the TREAT Act that would do just that so we don't 
lose ground on this other deadly disease.
  We also need to look forward to the fall and ensure that we have 
funding to support the schools so they are able to safely reopen their 
doors to students. Keeping our children out of the classroom for a 
protracted period of time has already had a negative impact on many of 
them with regard to educational advancement.
  We have heard this from the experts, the American Pediatric Society, 
and the pediatricians back home--the doctors who are looking at this 
situation are saying it is very helpful in terms of getting kids back 
to school for education but also for their mental health and for their 
social skills.
  On top of that, many parents, of course, have been forced to make 
impossible decisions. Do they go to work to earn a paycheck or do they 
stay home to take care of their child. So reopening the schools will 
have the effect of having childcare, which is very important. We need 
to act fast to ensure children don't lose more progress.
  Our phase 5 legislation should provide funding to help our schools 
safely reopen, whether it is providing additional masks, gloves or 
other protective gear or other resources we have talked about, I think 
that money is well spent.
  Second, we have to get the economy moving again. To do that, I 
believe we need to remove the disincentive currently in place; whereby, 
interestingly, we tried to help on unemployment insurance, but we 
provided a flat $600 payment that has actually disincentivized a lot of 
people from going back to work. Why? Because most individuals are 
making more on unemployment insurance than at their previous job. A 
University of Chicago study says that 60 to 70 percent of those who are 
on unemployment insurance are making more on UI than they did when 
working.

  As part of this negotiation, I believe Congress should and will 
extend the additional Federal unemployment insurance benefit in some 
form, but you shouldn't get paid more not to work. I think that is a 
principle that we all agree with, I hope, on both sides of the aisle. 
We should fix this disincentive to work by making the benefit a 
percentage of your previous income.
  By the way, a July 13 Yahoo Finance-Harris Poll found that 62 percent 
of Americans believed these enhanced UI benefits served as a 
disincentive to work. They are right. It doesn't have to be that way. 
We can help people to ensure they get the support they need but not 
have them being paid more than they would if they were going to work.
  Depending on how high the Federal payment is, by the way, we ought to 
also consider a return-to-work bonus for individuals that they receive 
on top of their paycheck--in other words, take part of the Federal 
benefit with them back to work. I have been promoting this since May. 
We haven't been able to pass it yet around here, but I think this would 
help people--help those workers who do want to go back to work to be 
able to make that tough decision without having a financial 
disincentive. It would help our small businesses and others who need 
the workforce badly, and it would help our economy begin to be able to 
reopen properly.
  This idea, by the way, has broad support across the country. That 
same poll I talked about found that 69 percent of respondents support a 
return-to-work bonus.
  There are various ways we can accomplish this goal, but I believe it 
would be helpful if it is paired with an extension of the unemployment 
insurance.
  So this is something we have to focus on and come up with a 
bipartisan consensus--a compromise--to ensure that we are not paying 
people more not to work but ensure we are taking care of people who are 
furloughed through no fault of their own.
  I also think we should be considering provisions to help incentivize 
the hiring from the employer side, so it is also providing more of an 
incentive to bring people on board. A way to do this that makes a lot 
of sense to me because it is building on legislation we have already 
passed is to expand and repurpose the work opportunity tax credit to 
add a category for COVID-19 furloughed individuals. Also, the employee 
retention tax credit from the CARES Act we passed just a short while 
ago can be improved to make it more encompassing and a better hiring 
credit. Helping to subsidize the marginal cost of a new hire will allow 
businesses to ramp up operations more quickly as the economy reopens, 
while also bringing more individuals off of the unemployment rolls and 
into the workforce.
  I hope these are part of whatever legislative package we end up with. 
Again, these two should be bipartisan. The work opportunity tax credit 
has always been bipartisan. The retention tax credit was bipartisan in 
the CARES Act. These are things we can do, and they should get done.
  We should be sure to stick with what has worked to this point in our 
coronavirus response. One of the biggest successes, of course, has been 
the PPP loan program. However, one flaw in the original law creating 
the PPP program was that it put in place barriers to loans for those 
owners who had unrelated felony records.
  This was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine. His name 
is Troy Parker. He is a person who has done everything you would expect 
and you would want someone to do who comes off of a felony conviction--
a mistake that he made. He was given a second chance, and he took it. 
He started a small business. It is a cleaning business, and he hires a 
lot of other second-chance individuals--returning citizens. He gives 
them a chance, an opportunity, and he has been successful. But during 
the coronavirus pandemic, he lost a lot of his business, as you can 
imagine, so he applied for a PPP loan. He was told he couldn't get one. 
Why? Because he has a felony record. He has a conviction for a 
financial crime, and it was within the last 5

[[Page S4406]]

years. It was several years ago, but it was in the last 5 years, so he 
couldn't get a PPP loan. Well, he is just the kind of individual we 
would want to help.
  Thanks to Troy, we engaged on this issue when we learned about it. We 
worked with the Treasury Department. We got some immediate relief in 
terms of a rule, but we now have to put that into law to provide the 
relief that is needed to provide certainty and to codify it. The 
Paycheck Protection Program Second Chance Act does that. It is 
bipartisan. Senator Cardin and I introduced this legislation. It has to 
be part of the next bill because it makes so much sense.
  We also need a plan to adapt our economy for a future where many 
individuals may be living more of their lives at home and online. This 
is easier in some urban areas where you have access to broadband, but 
it can be a huge hurdle in some other areas, particularly rural parts 
of our country, including parts of Ohio.
  Think about it. We rely much more on telehealth, much more on 
telelearning, and much more on teleworking. Yet, in many parts of the 
country, there is no access to the kind of Wi-Fi, the kind of broadband 
that you need to do so effectively.
  Earlier this month, I introduced bipartisan and bicameral legislation 
to accelerate broadband access across the country to help our economy. 
Rural America deserves the same level of access to broadband, and 
including this legislation in this phase 5 package would help them get 
it faster.
  Third, we need to solve the growing problem of State and local 
governments running out of funding the longer this crisis continues. 
This has affected some critical public safety services like EMS, 
firefighters, and police departments, leaving more Americans vulnerable 
at the worst possible time.
  Ohio is particularly vulnerable because many of our local governments 
are so reliant on income taxes. In fact, the Brookings Institute has 
determined that four of the top five cities of America that will feel 
the largest fiscal impact are probably cities in Ohio.
  Back in April, Senator Brown and I urged the Treasury to provide more 
flexibility so local governments can use the CARES funding that has 
been provided for critical services like police and fire. While the 
administration--thanks to Secretary Mnuchin understanding and acting on 
this--did so administratively, it now has to be codified to be sure we 
have the needed certainty.
  When I was home the last few weeks, I heard a lot about this from our 
county commissioners, our municipalities, and our mayors saying: We 
don't know if we can use these funds this way or that way. We have to 
be sure we have some certainty here. We don't want to have to repay 
this money.

  So this codification will also be very important.
  The flexibility, I hope, is something that both sides of the aisle 
can agree to. Why shouldn't we have more flexibility with regard to the 
CARES funding?
  By the way, some of it hasn't been spent yet. As an example, in Ohio 
we still have $850 million that is slated to go to the local 
communities, to our commissioners, and to our mayors for our cities 
that are under 500,000. Yet we don't have the flexibility and certainty 
we need there. That is important to pass as part of this legislation.
  These are just a few policy proposals, I believe, that can make an 
immediate and lasting impact in our response to the challenges we face 
with this coronavirus pandemic. I am sure that in the coming days, we 
will be discussing the next steps forward in-depth because I believe we 
all recognize how important it is to get this right and to move quickly 
on it.
  Unemployment, by the way, expires--that $600--on July 31, at the end 
of next week. That is a deadline we can't let pass.
  We are facing a momentous test of our ability to come together once 
again to address a disease that has changed almost every aspect of our 
lives, seemingly overnight. It is our responsibility to do that. Now is 
the time to put aside partisanship, get away from our partisan corners, 
and work together on some of these constructive solutions.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle--my colleague from Washington State, my colleagues from North 
Dakota, and my colleagues who I know share my concern that we can't 
allow this opportunity to pass. We have to once again come together.
  As we said tonight, there are many of these things that are 
bipartisan, where there can be a lot of consensus. We have to move 
forward to support our healthcare system, our schools, our employers, 
and our families as we work to overcome this crisis.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                    The Great American Outdoors Act

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the 
NDAA, but before I do, I want to join my colleagues and share their 
great enthusiasm tonight out here on the Senate floor in talking about 
the Senate-crafted bill, the Great American Outdoors Act, that took a 
step closer to getting to the President's desk today. That is the 
investment that we believe we should be making in open space and public 
lands passed the House of Representatives and we hope will be signed by 
the President very shortly.
  This investment, as my colleagues were talking about tonight, has 
been a long time in coming on two fronts--obviously, coming from a 
State that represents a lot of National Parks and areas that need the 
investment in deferred maintenance projects--everything from Olympic 
National Park that will get an upgrade for some aging water systems to 
new trails at Mt. Rainier, to other projects at Lake Roosevelt and even 
Fort Vancouver.
  I want to thank all my colleagues, Senators Gardner, Manchin, 
Portman, King, Burr, Warner, Alexander, Daines, and Heinrich, who made 
up the coalition who have been working on this issue in the more recent 
days to make sure that we got it out of the Senate and got it over to 
the House of Representatives. The important thing is that it has been a 
bipartisan coalition of people who believe in public lands and open 
space that has brought us to this point.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund was something that Scoop Jackson 
led the charge on in the 1960s, based on the fact that he thought 
America was urbanizing and, with our highway system, he thought we 
would need open space and, boy, was he right. So everything from Gas 
Works Park in downtown Seattle that gives families a great view of Lake 
Union to the impressive things that have been done all over the State, 
being able to say now that the Land and Water Conservation Fund will 
receive $900 million permanently means two to three times more money 
than we previously had to make investments in open space.
  And we know that investments in open space are not only restorative 
to all of us who enjoy the outdoors, whether it is hunting or fishing 
or hiking, but it also is a big juggernaut for our economy. That over 
$800 billion in revenue is generated from this industry, and it is an 
industry that is well worth putting more investment in.
  So I thank all my colleagues that were here tonight and for their 
hard work. Particularly, I want to thank Senator Manchin. Senator 
Manchin has done an incredible job taking this issue as the ranking 
member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and understanding 
how important it was to get it over the goal line.
  So I tell the Senator that I am going to give him a picture of myself 
hiking in the Dolly Sods in West Virginia as a great thank you for his 
perseverance of moving this effort to the final goal line. So I just 
want to thank Senator Manchin and, obviously, all my colleagues.


                                S. 4049

  But, Mr. President, I wanted to come as we were wrapping up the final 
debate on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021 
to talk to my colleagues about this bill as it moves to conference.
  I want to make sure we continue to pay particular attention to one 
provision, and that is that the NDAA bill, as reported out of the Armed 
Services Committee, I believe included some egregious provisions that 
would effectively wrestle away civilian control of spending on our 
nuclear arsenal and give it to the military, a provision that would 
allow the Department of Defense

[[Page S4407]]

to raid dollars out of the Department of Energy that are literally 
there specifically for us to meet our nuclear cleanup obligations and 
also to fund R&D at our national laboratories, places like the National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado or other facilities in my 
State, like the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
  Specifically, the committee-reported bill would have stripped the 
Energy Secretary's power over his own budget and would have allowed 
subcabinet officials on the Nuclear Weapons Council to approve the 
budget for the National Nuclear Security Administration.
  So I know the Presiding Officer knows this well. But it would have 
allowed the Pentagon to prioritize making nuclear weapons over the 
critical missions of the U.S. Department of Energy. And I believe it 
also would have reduced civilian control over spending on our country's 
nuclear weapons complex.
  I am so glad that Energy Secretary Brouillette wrote to Senator 
Inhofe and talked about this and said: ``These provisions eliminate a 
President's Cabinet Secretary from managing some of the most sensitive 
national security programs in the Department, most notably, assuring 
the viability of the Nation's nuclear deterrent.''
  I do want to thank Senators Inhofe and Reed for hearing the concerns 
expressed by many Senators on both sides of the aisle and for hearing 
the concerns of the Secretary of Energy and accepting the Manchin-
Cantwell amendment that stripped these troubling provisions out of the 
bill because I believe it was a radical change that did not have enough 
debate.
  But I certainly appreciate the Presiding Officer's interest and 
determination as well. In particular, I want to thank Senator Alexander 
and Senators Heinrich, Cassidy, Wyden, Barrasso, Hirono, Risch, and 
Sanders who jointly sent a letter to the Senate leadership expressing 
opposition to these provisions.
  In a letter that stated, if these provisions would have remained in 
the bill, they would have ``impeded accountability and Congressional 
oversight, as well as imperil future funding for other critical DOE 
responsibilities such as promoting scientific and technological 
innovation, managing our National Laboratories, sponsoring basic 
research in the physical sciences, and ensuring cleanup of the nation's 
nuclear weapons complex.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that letter, the 
Cantwell-Alexander letter, be printed into the Record
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     July 1, 2020.
       Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer, 
     Chairman Inhofe, and Ranking Member Reed: As the Senate 
     considers the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization 
     Act (NDAA), we write to express our opposition to the 
     inclusion of controversial and far reaching provisions that 
     would fundamentally alter the Department of Energy's (DOE) 
     responsibilities for the nuclear weapons budget.
       As members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources, we write in support of Secretary Brouillette's 
     June 29, 2020 letter to Chairman Inhofe and share his 
     concerns that provisions in the Senate NDAA bill undermine 
     DOE's ability to meet its mission goals and responsibility 
     for maintaining the viability of the nation's nuclear 
     deterrent.
       As currently written, the Senate NDAA bill would strip the 
     Secretary of Energy of the ability to manage some of the most 
     sensitive national security programs that account for almost 
     half of the Department's budget. Such changes could impede 
     accountability and Congressional oversight, as well as 
     imperil future funding for other critical DOE 
     responsibilities such as promoting scientific and 
     technological innovation, managing our National Laboratories, 
     sponsoring basic research in the physical sciences, and 
     ensuring cleanup of the nation's nuclear weapons complex.
       Sweeping changes impacting civilian control of our nation's 
     nuclear weapons programs should only be made in consultation 
     and coordination with the committee of jurisdiction in an 
     open and transparent manner. The changes included in the 
     Senate NDAA bill have been met with opposition from the Trump 
     Administration, former Secretaries of Energy, recent NNSA 
     Administrators, and the Congressional Advisory Panel on the 
     Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise.
       We therefore request that the provisions be removed from 
     the pending bill or that the Senate be allowed to vote on the 
     relevant amendments filed by Ranking Member Manchin.
           Sincerely,
         Senator Maria Cantwell, Senator Lamar Alexander, Senator 
           Martin Heinrich, Senator Bill Cassidy, Senator Ron 
           Wyden, Senator John Barrasso, Senator Mazie K. Hirono, 
           Senator Jim Risch, Senator Bernie Sanders.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I respectfully ask that the members of 
this year's NDAA conference committee--I am assuming there will be 
one--that they consider all these issues as they go to conference.
  This is not just a bureaucratic budget dispute or some interagency 
accounting measure. This is, I believe, a very important issue, as it 
relates to civilian oversight of our nuclear weapons complex and, as 
written in the original bill, would have required the Nuclear Weapons 
Council to set the priorities for the NNSA budget and would have 
required the Department of Energy to get the Nuclear Weapons Council's 
approval before it could submit its Energy budget to OMB.
  So, yes, there was a big takeover of the Department of Energy budget 
snuck into the NDAA. Well, let's just say some of us knew about it; 
some of us didn't know about it. But we objected, and now, we have 
taken this language out.
  But I am sure this will continue, and I think it still continues. I 
think people who have a desire to have a larger National Nuclear 
Security Administration budget definitely are going to continue this 
effort. But people should know that the National Nuclear Security 
Administration makes up about 45 percent of the Department of Energy's 
budget.
  So, in other words, the Secretary of Energy would have lost control 
over almost half of his budget. And it would also mean that the Nuclear 
Weapons Council, which is comprised of five DOD subcabinet officials 
and one representative of the Department of Energy, that they would 
have effectively been dictating to members of the President's Cabinet 
what the budget should look like. So imagine that the Secretary of 
Energy has to come before Congress, and he says, 45 percent of my 
budget has already been determined by somebody else, and you really 
can't go talk to them.
  This isn't just an issue of transparency. This is also an issue about 
the Department of Energy's obligations to clean up, specifically in 
Washington at Hanford. So I want to make sure people understand that 
nuclear waste cleanup is a Federal obligation. It is an obligation that 
we have as a nation, not just in Washington, but other States, and 
unfortunately, we haven't met all the milestones for nuclear waste 
cleanup. In fact, Idaho experienced this between 2012 and 2018 when DOE 
failed to meet cleanup milestones at the Idaho National Laboratory.
  Taking away DOE's ability to control its own budget would make it 
harder to meet milestones, and now, some want more of their budget 
taken away by the NNSA. How are they going to meet these milestones? 
This is probably nowhere more important than in the State of 
Washington. And so the Department of Energy is legally obligated to 
meet these cleanup obligations at the Hanford site and to meet the 
obligations of what is called the Tri-Party Agreement, which is a legal 
contract with the State of Washington.
  It is the duty of our Nation to clean up what was a national effort 
in World War II and the Cold War.
  So I hope our colleagues won't forget history here, won't forget the 
obligation to clean up those nuclear waste sites, and certainly won't 
forget this effort we had here on the Senate floor. Last year, the 
Department of Energy completed a Lifecycle Scope, Schedule, and Cost 
Report for the completion of the Hanford cleanup site. It found 
remaining cleanup costs to be $323 billion at a best-case scenario and 
$677 billion at a worst-case scenario.
  So that makes cleaning up legacy military nuclear waste sites in 
central Washington the second largest long-term obligation the Federal 
Government has after Social Security and Medicare. So it is no wonder 
people come and try to raid it.
  Trust me, I could be going on all night over all the efforts that 
have been going on for decades, where people try to come up with a new 
way of either taking that money out of the budget or saying that they 
are going to find a quicker way to do cleanup. I am

[[Page S4408]]

all for speed, but I am also for meeting the obligations. But there is 
no magic here. It is a responsibility, and it is science, and it is an 
investment, and it belongs to the whole Nation. And we certainly don't 
deserve to have people coming to the Senate floor with a bill trying to 
take away 45 percent of the administration's budget and then say we 
don't have to meet that cleanup obligation because we are investing in 
nuclear weapons instead.
  So, believe me, as this bill moves off the Senate floor, I am going 
to be watching the conference. I am not just going to watch this issue 
now or in conference. I am going to be keeping watch on this issue in a 
constant fashion, just like I always have on Hanford cleanup dollars. 
But I resent that people believe that Congress would fall for such a 
tactic to believe that the efforts of nuclear weapons development 
should be controlled by a small subcabinet council and that they 
shouldn't report to the Secretary of Energy on that budget, but make up 
their own budget and demand that it be met at the Presidential level
  Now, I just hope we don't reach this same dilemma again. I hope we 
have learned from it. I hope that people understand that these 
priorities of cleanup of our nuclear waste sites and what these parts 
of the country did for us in meeting our obligations in World War II 
and the Cold War.
  We laud those efforts from a scientific perspective. We laud those 
efforts from the manpower that it took. We should now laud a budget 
that keeps the focus on cleanup and gets the job done and not lose 
track or sight because, from time to time, somebody else wants to make 
a larger investment in nuclear weapons.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 2457

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to ask: What does 
democracy look like in America? I have here a picture of what democracy 
looks like--people showing up presenting their opinions with their feet 
and their voices and their signs saying: We want change. And the change 
they want is to pursue the important value that public safety in 
America be a value that is applied equally to all citizens; that every 
single person in the community is viewed as a client for the public 
safety team; that the distribution of protection is equal and the 
treatment of citizens is equal, so that when public safety officers 
respond, they respond equally no matter what section of the city the 
call comes from; that they respond the same no matter the color of a 
person's skin; that profiling is a thing of the past; that viewing two 
young Black men on the street is not viewed differently than viewing 
two young White men on the street. It is that goal of having everyone 
treated fairly that has led so many to come out and say: We need major 
reform in our country. We need to set behind us the time period when 
departments of public safety tend to look at the White community and 
say, ``Those are our clients,'' and look at the Black community or the 
dark-skinned community and say, ``Those are the threats.'' That is what 
people are trying to change by turning out in America in this fashion.
  It is an important moment in which we need substantive change, real 
change--real change like the bill Cory Booker put together and led the 
battle on, and Kamala Harris put together with him in partnership and 
led the battle on. That is the type of change we need in America. That 
is why people have been turning out in the streets.
  But there is an unexpected twist on something we didn't anticipate, 
in which the President of the United States hasn't listened to this 
message about coming together so that everyone is treated equally. 
Instead, he is doubling down on a strategy of racism, a strategy of 
bigotry, a strategy of creating conflict in America with a determined 
new effort.
  This is a picture of protesting in Oregon. I was at a demonstration 
much like this, where people chanted: ``This is what democracy looks 
like. This is what democracy looks like.''
  This is what democracy looks like, colleagues--people coming together 
with their signs and their feet and their time, saying: We need change. 
It is as fundamental as free expression under the First Amendment. It 
is as fundamental to our Constitution as the right to assemble. This is 
as fundamental to the vision of ``We the People'' as anyone can 
imagine--that vision that Lincoln summarized as ``government of the 
people, by the people, for the people,'' not of, by, and for some 
dictatorial force, not someone who wants to consolidate power in an 
imperial Presidency.
  In fact, our Founders were really worried about authoritarianism. 
They were really worried about an imperial Presidency.
  Once they launched that Constitution, what would happen with that 
first President? Would that first President say: I am now going to 
consolidate power in this young Republic, hold on to the Executive, 
ignore the balance of powers between the branches of government, and 
consolidate power in the Executive. I am going to take the forces that 
were the Revolutionary War forces, and I am going to turn them into a 
force to keep in power regardless of the constitutional requirement for 
elections.
  They were very worried about this. One of the reasons they 
particularly liked the idea of George Washington being the first 
President is that George Washington was very worried about that, and 
the example he set would mean a whole lot.
  It is one thing to have a Constitution on paper. It is a whole other 
thing to hold onto it, to keep it. Coming out of the Constitutional 
Convention, the story goes that someone asked one of the convention 
policymakers: What do we have? And he replied: A republic, if we can 
keep it--if we can keep it.
  This is what democracy looks like right here. There is another 
picture of what democracy looks like. This is the ``wall of moms'' in 
Portland, OR, coming out, standing side by side, creating a barrier 
between the police and the Federal forces that had been allocated to 
the city by President Trump and the people, creating that barrier, that 
``wall of moms,'' to say: Do not use flashbang on us or all the people 
behind us; do not use tear gas on us or all the people behind us; do 
not use impact munitions, a polite name for, essentially, rubber 
bullets--they say ``nonlethal bullets''--we hope, right, because 
sometimes they do enormous damage--do not use your batons to knock us 
down and break our bones; do not pepper spray us in the face. We are 
the ``wall of moms.''
  This is what democracy looks like, but this is a message lost on 
President Trump. We have something entirely different from the 
President. The President said: I am going to send some forces out to 
Portland to basically pour gasoline on the fire and turn it into, 
basically, a much more intense conflict.
  So you already have the basics of a challenge in which you have had 
folks from the White extremists coming in camouflage to Portland to 
create trouble and looking for a fight, and you have antifa coming to 
Portland to look for a fight with the White extremists, the White 
nationalists.
  Well, that had calmed down enormously to where there was only a small 
group left, coming in late at night and causing trouble. But Trump 
said: If I can recreate conflict in Portland, well, I can run a 
campaign on fear. Because what we have seen, in Presidential campaign 
after Presidential campaign, is a Republican candidate saying: If we 
run on fear, we will win because people think of us as stronger on 
national security.
  Well, we have seen the different strategies. There was the Ebola run-
on-fear strategy. There was the ``immigrants, rapists, and murderers 
are going to run across the border and swarm America'' run-on-fear 
strategy. There was the ``ISIS is going to row across the Atlantic and 
invade America'' run-on-fear strategy. There was the Willie Horton 
``you are going to be attacked by a dark-skinned person in an alley'' 
run-on-fear strategy.
  And all too often it has worked, this effort to gear up division in 
America, to play on racism in America.

[[Page S4409]]

  But to that strategy of division and racism I say: No way. That is 
too low, too wrong for America. We should be coming together as a 
country. We should have a message of coming together as a people. We 
should be taking on the challenges of healthcare and housing and 
education.
  Those are the bills we should have here on the floor of the Senate. 
We should be taking on the issue of fair labor, good-paying jobs. We 
should be working on rebuilding America's infrastructure.
  We should be addressing the fact that, even today in States all 
across this country, you can be discriminated against for being a 
member of the LGBTQ community. You can get married in the morning, and 
you can proceed to be thrown out of your apartment. You can be told you 
cannot eat in this restaurant, you cannot sit in this movie theater, 
you cannot receive this government benefit.
  The Supreme Court just took one step forward on the employment 
question, strengthening the ability to not be discriminated against in 
employment.
  We passed a bill here in the Senate back in 2013 to do exactly that, 
to strengthen protections in employment, but the Republican-controlled 
House wouldn't take it up and treat LGBTQ Americans fairly.
  If we were doing our job, we would have a debate on the Equality Act 
that would end discrimination in all of these areas because it is the 
right thing to do that no door should be slammed in the face of an 
American because of who they are or whom they love. Isn't that 
something we should be doing here?
  Shouldn't we be taking on this challenge of carbon pollution and 
climate chaos? All the fossil fuel companies have worked hard to turn 
this into a partisan issue. It didn't used to be a partisan issue. Back 
when President Bush--not yet President but candidate Bush ran against 
candidate Dukakis, it was the Republican candidate who ran on climate 
change. It was the Democrat who ran on fossil fuels.
  It is not so long ago, before Citizens United, that we had so many 
climate champions on both sides, but then dark money was introduced, 
and the fossil fuel community said: This is our chance to control the 
U.S. Senate. They put hundreds of millions--not thousands, millions--of 
dollars into the Senate campaigns 6 years ago, 2014.
  I remember it well because I was one of the folks they were 
targeting, and I saw their strategy of taking that money and putting it 
into third-party campaigns and running tremendous numbers of assault 
ads, negative ads, attack ads--doing it on social media all across the 
board
  Since then, what happened? Well, all the voices that were on the 
Republican side of the aisle saying ``We need to take on climate'' 
disappeared. That is the corrupting power of Citizens United and dark 
money.
  Then we had a bill here on the floor. We needed 60 votes, under our 
policy rules, to be able to pass it to close debate. It was 
disclosure--to say at least we should disclose where money comes from. 
But what happened? The fossil fuel lobby said no Republican can dare to 
vote for this bill if you want us to keep you in power, and every 
single Member across the aisle followed their lead and voted against 
disclosure.
  They voted for darkness. They voted for hiding these massive 
contributions coming in from who knows where because they are hidden.
  My point is that this is democracy here, people expressing their 
views, and here in this Chamber we should have democracy as well.
  We had it almost over our entire history, of people being able to put 
virtually any issue on the floor and have it debated on and then to 
have it voted on and then to have voters know how their Senator voted 
so there was accountability.
  But no more. We are in this incredible period in which there are a 
record number--low--of amendments, and the amendments we do have are 
basically not very significant to begin with or they are preprogrammed 
by leadership, not by each Senator having power. The idea of 100 
Senators having that power--that sounds like something out of just 
another world, yet that was the Senate throughout its history until 
recently.
  Why do I keep emphasizing this? Because this concentration of power 
where bills and amendments only go through the majority leader is an 
absolute fit with government by and for the powerful--the opposite of 
government by and for the people.
  So if someone has a bill that says you can't gouge Americans on drug 
prices, they can't get that bill to the floor because it is blocked by 
the majority leader, and the drug companies don't want that bill on the 
floor, so they give a lot of money to that team.
  If someone says we should have reasonable gun safety laws--not 
violating the Second Amendment--and we will make the world a little 
safer for our children, well, that bill can't get on the floor because 
it is blocked by the majority leader, and it is backed by massive 
spending of dark money and the NRA.
  Or if we have a bill that says we should do a lot more about housing, 
I can't put that bill on the floor. How about we have a banking system 
that serves the cannabis industry so that we don't have huge bags of 
money opened up to the possibility of organized crime moving it around 
the country and doing bad things? We should extend that coverage, but 
we can't get that vote on this floor--which brings me to something more 
important than just basically anything I have just talked about, which 
is what President Trump is doing right now: deploying secret police 
across America, secret police here in America.
  Now, we know that President Trump admires authoritarian leaders. He 
has spoken with admiration about Duterte in the Philippines. He seems 
to be in love with Erdogan in Turkey. He loves the Crown Prince in 
Saudi Arabia, who assassinated an American-based journalist.
  He can't find anything wrong with how Putin runs Russia, as basically 
an authoritarian-style dictator. But now he is doing something beyond 
just this affection: He is bringing the tactics of authoritarian 
governments to the streets of the United States of America.
  This is what democracy looks like, but I am going to show you some 
pictures of what democracy doesn't look like--instead, what 
authoritarianism looks like, what paramilitary forces look like.
  So let's take an exploration of the President's strategy. Well, 
first, authoritarians don't want identity about the organization on 
their police uniforms, and they want the police, in functioning, to 
look more like warriors in some other fight across the sea.
  So you dress them in camouflage. Here are folks deployed by President 
Trump in the streets of Portland. What agency do these belong to? No 
shoulder patch, no identity on this front, no identity on the other 
shoulder, no identity on the helmet--no identity. Who are these people?
  How about these people? Are these the same group here? These are 
White extremists, nationalists, who come to Portland to get in fights. 
So President Trump dresses up his Federal forces to look like White 
extremists on the streets of Portland.
  How is there accountability if you don't know where they are from?
  Who can tell me if these folks are from Customs and Border 
Protection? Are they from the Federal Protective Service? Are they U.S. 
Marshals? How do we know? We don't because they are deliberately not 
marked.
  We are told that these are actually Customs and Border Protection. I 
called up the head of Customs and Border Protection, and I said: What 
is the story with this tactic of secret police on the streets? He said: 
Oh, no, no, no; we insist they have ``CBP'' on them. We insist they 
have a unique identifier.
  In fact, he put this in a tweet. He told all of America: We don't do 
that. But America has pictures, and those pictures tell us there is no 
ID. They are being deployed as secret operators on the streets of 
Portland.
  That is going to be terrifying because you don't know who they are. 
Is it just someone who wants to create trouble who puts ``police'' on 
their shirt? Is it one of these folks? These folks have badges on them 
that look a little more official. We see an American flag here. We see 
an American flag here.
  Are these White extremists coming to the streets to beat people up, 
or are they Federal agents? And if so, who are they, and what is their 
mission? We found out their mission in short order.

[[Page S4410]]

  Here we have a picture of a Navy vet. That Navy vet said he came down 
to say: What does it mean to honor your oath--your oath of office, your 
oath to the Constitution? He wants to know. He was a veteran who served 
in our forces to defend the Constitution.
  How did President Trump's secret police respond? Here is a CBP agent 
with a baton right here, striking him. Here is another one with a baton 
coming around to strike him again. Here is another one spraying pepper 
spray into his face. This man, just standing here--his hands are 
basically hooked in his pocket, like this--he is just standing here 
saying: I came down here to see what people thought about honoring 
their oath to the Constitution. And he is attacked. He is attacked by 
multiple members of this secret force Trump puts on the streets of our 
Nation.
  They had not just pepper spray and not just batons; they had other 
weapons, impact munitions--in this case, U.S. marshals.
  Here is a young man who is holding a boom box over his head--that is 
what it looked like--and he is on one side of the street. On the other 
side of the street are the marshals. As he stands there in the video, 
you see him crumble and fall to the ground because from across the 
street, he was shot right between the eyes. Critical condition. 
Fractured skull.
  Who in the world would expect a Federal officer to shoot a protester, 
who is either holding up a sign or a radio, between the eyes from 
across the street? Do you think that is accidental? They accidentally 
shot him in the head? It wasn't accidental; it was deliberate. They are 
sending a message. A lot of other people got shot with these munitions. 
I am told that he is no longer in critical condition. Thank goodness 
for that, but it could have been very, very different. We still don't 
know the ultimate outcome of this assault on a peaceful protester.
  Pepper spray, using batons on veterans, shooting a peaceful protester 
in the head from a few yards away--that is not all that Trump's secret 
police were up to. They decided to go through the streets and grab 
people and throw them into unmarked vans.
  Here is one of those vans on the streets of Portland. Here are 
President Trump's secret police, unmarked, throwing another protester 
into a van.
  One of the individuals who was treated in this fashion said he was 
terrified because he thought these camouflaged folks were the White 
extremists who come to make trouble, and was he being kidnapped? They 
would not answer the question when they were asked ``Who are you?'' 
They didn't answer the question.
  Secret police, unmarked, using pepper spray, batons, impact 
munitions, and tear gas on peaceful protesters, and then throwing 
people--grabbing them and throwing them into unmarked vans. What does 
that make you think of? What country are we talking about here? Are we 
talking about Syria? Are we talking about Duterte in the Philippines? 
Are we talking about Erdogan in Turkey? Are we talking about the Crown 
Prince in Saudi Arabia? Are we talking about Putin running Russia? We 
could be talking about any of those folks, as they use these tactics, 
but this is unacceptable and outrageous and unconstitutional in a 
democratic republic.
  President Trump coordinated this deployment of secret police and 
attacks on peaceful protesters to create a big conflagration, a big 
explosion of protests in Portland. The protests had died down to just 
less than 100 actors and some bystanders in the late evening, and then 
I am told that on the days that followed these outrageous attacks, the 
protests multiplied--not one- or twofold but fivefold or more. That is 
exactly what Trump wanted because he wanted to say: There is this 
dissent and trouble in the streets of Portland. I am your law-and-order 
President; I will take care of that trouble.
  You create the trouble. You escalate the conflict so you can say ``I 
am the one who can deescalate it'' later. This is a horrific strategy 
that no Member of this Senate should have the slightest sympathy for--a 
strongman in the Oval Office adopting the secret police tactics of the 
worst dictators from around the globe.
  Some of the headlines that followed were things like this:
  ``Federal Law Enforcement Use Unmarked Vehicles To Grab Protesters 
Off Portland Streets.''
  ``A Navy vet asked federal officers in Portland to remember their 
[constitutional] oaths. Then they broke his hand.'' You saw the 
pictures of them striking him with the batons.
  ``Federal Officers Deployed in Portland Didn't Have Proper Training, 
D.H.S. memo said.'' It says: Untrained, undisciplined folks, but they 
knew what the President wanted and that was to create an escalation of 
violence on the streets of our city.
  You are probably wondering, didn't the President call and talk to the 
Governor before he decided to deploy these secret police on the streets 
of Portland? No, he didn't. Didn't the DHS Secretary? No. How about the 
Department of Justice? The Attorney General? No. Surely they called the 
mayor and said: Before we deploy folks to patrol the streets with tear 
gas and batons and impact bullets, rubber bullets, pepper spray; before 
we beat up peaceful protesters and shoot them in the head, we want to 
talk to you, Mayor, about what is going on. Did the President call? Did 
the Secretary call, the Secretary of Homeland Security? Did the 
Secretary or the Attorney General call? Did the head of Customs and 
Border Protection, CBP, call before they sent in their special 
operating group? Did the Marshals' lead director, commissioner call? 
The answer is no, no, no, no, and no. None of them called because they 
weren't coming to coordinate, to help; they were coming to disrupt. 
They knew that if they asked to come, asked whether they were wanted, 
the answer would be no, you are not wanted because you are coming to 
inflame the violence and disruption
  The President was giving speeches, saying ``Look at what a wonderful 
President I am because I am sending help to quell violence in 
Portland'' while he was sending secret police to create violence. This 
has to be one of the bigger lies he has told in his time as President. 
By various accounts, he tells a number of them every single day. But 
this lie to the American people is not just a little white lie; this is 
not just a little misrepresentation; this is something of 
constitutional input about who we are as a country. We don't do secret 
police in our country. We don't grab people off the streets and terrify 
them and throw them in unmarked vans in our country--at least not until 
now.
  You see, the President has looked at the polls that say we are not 
very happy. Americans are not very happy with the way you have executed 
the Presidency. We are certainly not very happy with the way you have 
managed this really big crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic. When there is a 
crisis, you start to see someone--can they rise to the occasion? Can 
they bring forth the best in people? Can they facilitate cooperation? 
Can they mobilize resources? Can they make the case in an effective and 
persuasive fashion?
  The American people have seen that President Trump could not rise to 
the occasion. He could not bring himself to bring people together. He 
could not make the case for a national strategy on how to tackle the 
coronavirus. He could not mobilize resources to address it in a timely 
fashion. Millions more are going to get sick as a result of his 
incompetence, and tens of thousands more will die because of the 
incompetence of President Trump.
  What is a President running for reelection to do when his 
incompetence is revealed in its complete and total clarity to the 
Nation? You create a war. That is what you do. You create a war because 
a war might rally people to your side when we are being attacked. But 
in this case, the President couldn't come up with an overseas war. 
ISIS? Too weak. The scary Ebola? Too long ago. North Korea? A 
completely failed strategy by the President of expressing his love for 
yet another dictator and that love not being returned in any effective 
policy changes. So what is left? Immigration. Oh, wait--he already 
played the rapist and murderers at the border card. He already offended 
people throughout our Nation by snuffing out the lamp of Lady Liberty. 
What is left? You have to create a war inside the United States.
  First came Washington, DC. He tried out the secret police strategy by 
deploying forces onto the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, unmarked, and 
nobody knew who the hell they were. Who

[[Page S4411]]

are these people who are on the Lincoln Memorial? Are they far-right 
extremists carrying guns? Are they Customs and Border Protection? Are 
they U.S. Marshals? Who are these people? Nobody knew. They were secret 
police at the Lincoln Monument.

  And then he decided to test the strategy of using weapons against 
peaceful protesters across from the White House. There they are 
gathered together. There is this great tradition in America. If you 
want to protest where the President can see you, you go to L'Enfant 
Plaza and you look up at the second story and you hold up your protest 
sign and you scream your position on something that you consider very 
important for America--the change you want to see or the man you object 
to. The President and his family look out those windows and say: I sure 
hate seeing those protesters.
  But that is symbolic of the right to assemble and the freedom of 
speech in our beautiful Nation under our extraordinary Constitution. 
What did President Trump do? Well, he walled off L'Enfant Plaza across 
from the White House so people couldn't protest there. That is what 
this President thinks of protesters. He sees them as a threat to him. 
He doesn't like freedom of assembly, and he doesn't like freedom of 
speech, but what he does like is a good photo opportunity.
  So the President decides to get the team together and we will go over 
and I will stand on the steps of the church and hold up a Bible. I 
still am a little confounded about what his message was to do that. The 
thing is, to get to the steps of the church, he would have to come near 
these protesters he hates because he hates protesters. He doesn't like 
Americans calling for change or criticizing his policies.
  I am thinking back about this ``wall of moms'' that I showed you 
earlier--these moms coming down, forming a line, and saying: Don't tear 
gas us. Don't do shock grenades. Don't shoot us with rubber bullets. 
Don't pepper spray us.
  And yet his forces did all those things.
  Where did he try this out first? He tried it in that area behind 
L'Enfant Plaza where the church steps were. His forces went out and 
attacked those protesters. Nobody saw violence of any kind. This had 
nothing to do with quelling a riot. This had to do with one simple 
thing: The President hates protests and wanted to show what a strong 
man he is, like those dictators he admires all across the planet--like 
the Crown Prince in Saudi Arabia, like Duterte with his extrajudicial 
executions in the Philippines, like Putin, whom he just can't say 
enough good things about who suppresses the civil rights of the Russian 
people. He wanted to show how strong he was so he sent his team out to 
tear gas, use impact munitions, rubber bullets on the protesters so he 
could stand at the church with a Bible.
  I am still wondering what passage in the Bible he was there to talk 
about. You can think for yourselves. You can imagine. You can ask 
yourselves: What did the President want to say with the Good Book in 
his hand? Did he want to say this book talks about turning the other 
cheek, and I will show how much I admire that principle of turning the 
other cheek by coming out and telling my team to tear gas and shoot 
peaceful protesters? Is that what the President wanted to do, kind of 
somehow demonstrate support for turning the other cheek by having his 
team gas and shoot people in that area close to L'Enfant Plaza, close 
to the steps of the church, or did the President want to come out and 
say: This Good Book talks about beating swords into plowshares, and I 
want to come out and show just how I believe in the principle of 
beating swords into plowshares by having my team gas people and baton 
people and do these explosive flashbang grenades. Is that what the 
President was trying to do?
  What message in the Bible was he trying to convey? Was he trying to 
convey the message that Jesus Christ talked about time and time and 
time again of helping the poor and the destitute, and he thought it was 
such an important message to carry to the United States that he would 
use force, tear gas, rubber bullets to clear the path so he could talk 
about how important it was to help the destitute and the poor in 
America and how his policies might help them? No. We don't know. I 
don't think the President knew. He has never indicated that he is 
actually familiar with the contents of that book he was holding up, 
which makes it a particularly bizarre photo op.
  But this was his first trial run of this strategy of using weapons 
against peaceful protesters, of using unmarked uniforms on the steps of 
the Lincoln Memorial. He loved it so much. He loved that sense that he 
was so strong because he could clear the path with his Presidential 
team so he could get to those steps. He was such an awesome man, such 
an incredible President showing strength by attacking peaceful 
protesters so he could have his photo on. It filled him with such 
energy, he thought: Let's try this out elsewhere in the country--so he 
comes to Portland.
  He comes to Portland, and he proceeds to say: Let's use that secret 
police strategy again, unmarked. Let's use those batons and pepper 
spray again against a peaceful protester. Let's use those impact 
munitions again against someone holding up a sign, shooting them from 
across the street, giving them a fractured skull and putting them in 
critical condition and into the hospital. Let's take it and even 
amplify it a little bit and put them into unmarked vans and sweep them 
away. This is what we have with the Trump secret police strategy.

  As he did these things, he went out on the campaign stump and said: 
Look what a mighty leader I am attacking these peaceful people with 
these weapons. I did it to the protesters in Washington, DC, and I did 
it to the protesters in Portland, OR, and now I am going to take my 
strategy of attacking protesters and spread it all across America.
  What does he talk about? He says: I want to take this strategy to 
Baltimore. He says: I want to take this strategy to Philadelphia. He 
says: I want to take this strategy to New York. And then he said: I 
want to take it to Chicago and I want to take it to Detroit and I want 
to take it to Oakland, CA. What do those things have in common? And 
then he says: They are led by Democrats. I will take my strategy of 
inciting violence with secret police, unmarked van abductions, use of 
pepper spray, batons, and flashbangs--the whole arsenal--and I will 
take it to all these cities where there are Democratic mayors. Then I 
will say: Look at me. I am a law-and-order President, and I can quell 
all that trouble I created across this country.
  You are probably thinking I made up this list of cities that the 
President talked about. Surely, the President wouldn't take this 
incredibly horrendous secret police strategy and express that he wanted 
to take it on a trial run all across America so he could create 
violence in Democratic cities, but in his own words:

       Who's next? New York and Chicago and Philadelphia and 
     Detroit and Baltimore and all of these--Oakland is a mess.

  And he framed it as going to quell violence, but, instead, the 
strategy produces violence. It enflames. It accentuates. It outrages. 
It creates conflict.
  I have here an article, and it is from FOX 32 News in Chicago: 
``Lightfoot confirms federal agents will help manage Chicago 
violence.'' Chicago has a Democratic mayor. Let's go create trouble 
there.

       Mayor Lori Lightfoot had a different tone Tuesday regarding 
     President Donald Trump's decision to send agents to Chicago. 
     ``I'm hopeful that they will not be foolish enough to bring 
     that kind of nonsense to Chicago,'' the mayor said.

  Well, what did she mean by ``nonsense''? It is the polite word for 
attacking peaceful protesters with batons and flashbangs and tear gas.
  I am certainly not saying that Portland didn't have some tensions. 
The extremist groups on the right have made a favorite trip out of 
coming to Portland to cause trouble and the anti-fascists have 
responded in kind, and that is what the local team has to manage and 
deescalate. They have succeeded in deescalating it to where it was a 
small group late at night. And then Trump came in and blew it all into 
a big crisis once again.
  When I said that this is coordinated with his campaign, campaign ads 
went up. His strategy of creating chaos in America, then campaigning on 
it couldn't be more transparent.

       As President Trump deploys Federal agents to Portland, 
     Ore., and threatens to

[[Page S4412]]

     dispatch to other cities, his re-election campaign is 
     spending millions of dollars on ominous television ads that 
     promote fear. . . . The influx of agents in Portland has led 
     to scenes of confrontations and chaos that Mr. Trump and his 
     aides have pointed to as they try to burnish a false 
     narrative about Democratic elected officials allowing 
     dangerous protesters to create widespread bedlam.
       The Trump campaign is driving home that message with a new 
     ad that tries to tie its dark portrayal of Democratic-led 
     cities.

  There it is--campaign ads to fit his dark portrayal of Democratic-led 
cities.
  The idea that not only would the President bring those secret police 
tactics to America--to our streets--he would deploy them in his effort 
to create conflict so he can win reelection, so he can have something 
that scares the American people. Don't we have enough to be worried 
about already? Don't we have a pandemic to manage?
  A number of us worked to say: Mr. President, you need to have a 
national strategy on producing protective equipment to help stop the 
spread of this contagion. Mr. President, that should probably include 
taking available factories and putting them to work making protective 
equipment and distributing it quickly. The President said, no, he's not 
doing it. He is not activating the Defense Production Act to have a 
national strategy to stop the spread of this disease.
  I have two healthcare workers in my family. My son works in a 
doctor's office recording the computer code on the symptoms and so 
forth. He is a medical scribe. My wife goes house to house visiting 
folks who are in hospice. They are in the final chapter of their life, 
and she coaches them and their family on care and support during this 
final chapter of our journey here on this planet. A number of the 
people she sees are very high risk because they are fragile and sick in 
that final chapter, so they would be very affected if this disease were 
introduced. Some of them have the disease.
  She has to be very careful that she doesn't pick it up and bring it 
home to my elderly mother who lives in our house. My elderly mother is 
in her nineties. She probably wouldn't want me to call her elderly in 
her nineties, but she is fragile, and she would be affected. My son 
doesn't want to bring it home or spread it. Both of them had trouble 
getting the protective equipment they needed early in this pandemic 
because we didn't have a national strategy. Trump failed the leadership 
test.

  How about another critical piece of this, which is testing?
  We needed to crank up all of the biological manufacturing capacity of 
America to produce the reagents so that people could be tested and get 
the results within hours or a day so that, if they were infected, even 
if they were asymptomatic--they didn't have the disease symptoms, but 
they had the disease, and they could spread it--that they would be 
quarantined, but the President said no.
  So we put into the bill a requirement for the President to produce a 
national test strategy and produce a report with his test strategy. 
What did it read? It read our test strategy--our national strategy--was 
to leave it to the States. What kind of leadership is that to have no 
strategy on producing the reagents or the tests and getting them around 
the country?
  One thing we have done here is we have funded a lot of money to help 
communities buy tests because they are expensive. We said they should 
be free to the victims--to the people who are getting tested, that is. 
Every health expert has said you have to crank up this testing so that 
there is no wait time. It doesn't help to get the results 7 or 10 days 
later.
  I have been holding townhalls. I hold one in every county every year 
in Oregon, 36 counties. This year, I only got 21 in before the 
coronavirus made it impossible to hold them in person, but I have been 
holding them digitally, electronically. I keep hearing the report from 
the county health agents that now testing has increased to its taking 7 
days to get a response, 9 days to get a response, 11 days to get a 
response. Why is that? It is because we didn't have any national 
strategy for producing tests. As the disease flares up and grows in 
magnitude in the Southern States, more and more resources are getting 
diverted to those Southern States. So there are not the testing 
supplies because there is no national strategy.
  Then the experts said: Well, you should have a contact tracing 
strategy, so, when people test positive, you can immediately find out 
who they have been in touch with so those people get immediately 
quarantined before they can pass it on to other people.
  Yet that doesn't work if you can't get test results quickly, and it 
doesn't work if you don't have contact tracers. A number of us have 
worked to provide funding for contact tracers. Elizabeth Warren and I 
have introduced a bill that calls for 100,000 contact tracers across 
this country. There is $75 billion in the House's bill for testing and 
tracing across the country.
  How did President Trump respond this last week? President Trump said: 
I don't want any money for testing in this bill--no money for testing. 
He wants this stripped out; yet it is an essential element for 
controlling the coronavirus.
  I don't think he will win on that one. I think the Members of this 
Chamber, on both sides of the aisle, care enough about their 
constituents that they want to help with testing and contact tracing, 
but the President wants the testing stripped out.
  Why does he want it stripped out? It is because, if you test more 
people, then you get more positives, and if you get more positives, it 
doesn't look good. So he is choosing to have things look good rather 
than to contain the coronavirus.
  If you proceed to offend people across the country by failing in 
leadership on protective equipment and failing in leadership on testing 
and failing in leadership on contact tracing, you need another plan, 
and we have the plan.
  The President has made it clear he will test out his secret police 
and attacks on peaceful protesters in DC, magnify that experiment in 
Portland, and see if it creates more chaos. If it does, he will deploy 
that effort across the Nation. That is President Trump's plan, and it 
is as wrong as anything could be. Secret policing has no place in the 
United States of America.
  I introduced a simple amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, 
which deals with security powers and things like Customs and Border 
Protection and deals with things like U.S. Marshals, and I said we are 
on that right now on the floor of the Senate. Let's have this debate 
about secret policing, and let's just ask a few simple things.
  First, when the President sends agents anywhere in the country, they 
have to carry identification about who they work for. It is not that 
big of a request, and it is not expensive. Instead of putting a generic 
``police'' or no marking at all, you put ``CBP,'' or you put ``U.S. 
Marshals,'' or you put ``Federal Protective Service'' or one of a dozen 
other Federal police units that play different roles. That way, the 
American people will know who they are. Then you put unique identifiers 
on them so that, if they do something terrible, like walk up and shoot 
a protester in the head, you would know who had done it. You could find 
out.
  Now, some of my friends have said: Well, we are not sure we want to 
require names to be on the uniforms because there have been some cases 
in which people have been so outraged that they have harassed the 
families of the police officers or of these Federal agents. We don't 
want that. OK. A number would work that could be used to identify 
someone after an egregious act but would protect the families of our 
Federal agents who are doing a good job. That is pretty simple. Have an 
ID as to what agency you belong to and a unique identifier. You are no 
longer secret.
  Then you can't be deployed on some expanded mission of sweeping the 
streets. Your legitimate mission should be to protect a Federal 
monument or a Federal building, and you have to be at that Federal 
building or in the near vicinity of it or of the monument. That is 
pretty simple. If you want a broader mission, you have to coordinate 
with the mayor and the Governor and get their permission
  It is pretty straightforward. Have a patch with the agency, a unique 
identifier, and pursue your mission in the near vicinity of the Federal 
property.
  What else?
  The President would have to tell the people of America how many 
people he is sending, from what agencies, and to what city for a little 
bit of transparency. That is it.

[[Page S4413]]

  This amendment that I am proposing to stop secret policing is simple; 
yet my colleagues are blocking it from being considered in this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, in a moment, I will again ask for this 
important issue of deployment of secret police to be debated and voted 
on, on this floor. That is what the U.S. Senate is for, to address the 
issues facing Americans, but I didn't want to ask until my colleague 
was here to respond from the Republican Caucus. When he is ready, I 
will make that motion.
  I make this motion to send a couple of different messages. One, most 
importantly, is that secret policing has no place in America, and all 
Americans must stand arm in arm and say no. The second is, when there 
is an important issue like this, this is the Chamber in which it should 
be debated and voted on so we can hear the conflicting views.
  There may be clauses in the amendment that I will propose that people 
won't like, insight that they can provide, or modifications that they 
would like to propose to my amendment, but it can't happen unless this 
amendment is considered on the floor.
  That is why, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent to 
call up my amendment to stop secret policing in America, amendment No. 
2457, an amendment to limit Federal law enforcement officers for crowd 
control; that there be 2 hours for debate, equally divided between 
opponents and proponents; and that upon the use or yielding back of 
time, the Senate vote in relation to the amendment with no intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I, like 
the entire staff in the Chamber today and like the Presiding Officer 
for most of this time, has endured this for the last hour, an hour that 
has been very similar to the hour we had yesterday on the very same 
topic and with the very same motion to have the very same amendment 
passed in the Defense Authorization Act.
  I am a member of the Committee on Armed Services. Prior to the 
Presiding Officer, I was presiding. I was honored to sit in that chair 
and watch the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and the 
ranking Democrat of the Committee on Armed Services talk in glowing 
terms about each other and the bipartisan effort that has led to a 
National Defense Authorization Act that has considered 807 amendments 
to this point. As we sit here, 40 more amendments--20 by Republicans 
and 20 by Democrats--are being hotlined for further consideration for, 
hopefully, tomorrow's final passage.
  The National Defense Authorization Act has been greatly debated. In 
fact, it has been the most debated bill that I have been part of since 
I got here. Not only that, the amendments that are represented in this 
807 are almost, nearly, equally divided among the two parties 
represented in this great Chamber.
  What we have been witnessing tonight is a diatribe--in some cases, 
fantasy but, in every case, an exaggeration and, in many cases, a 
fabrication. The good Senator from Oregon has shown us pictures of what 
democracy looks like. I don't disagree. We are self-governed. The 
exceptionalism of America is that we are self-governed.
  Democracy also demands protocol in this Chamber, the most 
deliberative body in this world. Yet, without any warning--without any 
heads-up--here we are, dealing with a unanimous consent motion on an 
amendment that has already failed to get unanimous consent just in the 
last 24 hours on a bill that has already been debated for weeks and 
months. It included bipartisan amendments across the board. Then we are 
confronted with this breach of not only protocol but of--well, let's 
just say--common decency and respect for each other.
  I do agree with the Senator from Oregon on this point: He is right in 
that we should have the debate, and that is why it is too bad that his 
amendment wasn't allowed to be debated in Senator Tim Scott's JUSTICE 
Act.
  And the reason it couldn't be debated there was because he and most 
every one of his colleagues on the Democrat side other than three 
filibustered against Tim Scott's police reform bill.
  I don't think they want a solution. They want to have this crazy 
rhetoric, demagogue all day and all night, wherever they can have a 
demagogue, and they want to blame President Donald Trump for the 
actions of criminals.
  Now, I have heard it all when I have heard, from the Senate floor, 
antifa referred to as the anti--what did he call them? The 
antifascists. The antifascists. That is the way to sugarcoat thugs.
  So for these reasons--and I could think of dozens of others, but I 
will spare you all and the staff this late night, getting later--I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oregon's postcloture time has expired.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MERKLEY. And I would invite my colleague to stay if he would like 
to and yield to him if he wants to jump into the conversation.
  Mr. CRAMER. I think we have had enough debate. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I don't object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, my colleague has said that the facts I 
have presented tonight are a fabrication, to use his exact word. He has 
called it a breach of protocol. He has called it a violation of common 
decency.
  I think we are here as a Chamber to address difficult, important 
issues in America. This is a difficult and important mission.
  This is a new use of force in a manner that doesn't belong in the 
streets of America. It is important that we debate it.
  I would be happy to have it be a standalone bill, come up right after 
this National Defense Authorization Act, and have it debated for 2 
hours and voted on, because then we actually have a conversation and we 
have to take a position, and our constituents can see where we stand, 
and folks could propose an amendment to it if they didn't like the way 
I have written it. It is so simple. It says: Do what we have always 
done. Put ID about where you come from. Have a unique identifier. And 
don't go sweeping through the streets if your mission is to protect a 
Federal property. Stay at that Federal property or work with the 
Governor or the mayor if you have a broader effort.
  Those are reasonable things.
  I don't think that it was a breach of protocol to ask this Chamber to 
consider that on this bill because there is a connection. We are 
talking about a bill that involves the use of force and how we govern 
in America.
  I don't think it is a violation of common decency. My colleague does, 
and I would prefer that we actually have that conversation about the 
facts and about the arguments, about the simple solution I proposed 
when we can actually take a vote or other people can offer amendments 
to it and modify it. That is this Chamber doing what it should be 
doing.
  So I am disappointed that my colleague is blocking this from being 
considered before this body.
  I do love this body, and I first came here when amendments were 
freely--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I am just going to reiterate my final 
point one final time, and I promise not to take more time than the 
Senator from Oregon.
  He had his opportunity to have this amendment considered, debated, 
and voted on in the JUSTICE Act, introduced by Senator Tim Scott, a 
bill that dealt specifically with police reform.
  It would have been the perfect place to have the debate, except that 
my colleague voted against cloture so we couldn't even proceed to the 
bill.

[[Page S4414]]

  I don't know how we could have made it any easier or better. In fact, 
when we took up the JUSTICE Act, he and his side were provided at least 
20 amendment opportunities. We could have had the debate he seeks 
tonight at the appropriate time on the appropriate bill, and I am sorry 
that we didn't do that.
  Perhaps after tonight's episode, he and his colleagues will 
reconsider, and perhaps before we are done this year, Senator Scott's 
JUSTICE Act could be brought to the floor and we could have an adult 
discussion and debate on amendments and on the bill and on all kinds of 
great ideas right here in the most august body in the United States. I 
hope that can happen.
  With that, I yield the floor and wish you a good night.

                          ____________________