[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 130 (Thursday, July 23, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4434-S4448]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 4049, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 4049) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2021 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Inhofe amendment No. 2301, in the nature of a substitute.
McConnell (for Portman) amendment No. 2080 (to amendment
No. 2301), to require an element in annual reports on cyber
science and technology activities on work with academic
consortia on high priority cybersecurity research activities
in Department of Defense capabilities.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Vote on Amendment No. 2080
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I know of no further debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to amendment No. 2080.
The amendment (No. 2080) was agreed to.
Vote on Amendment No. 2301, as Amended
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2301, as amended.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
[[Page S4435]]
The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 12, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 138 Leg.]
YEAS--88
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Loeffler
Manchin
McConnell
McSally
Menendez
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Young
NAYS--12
Booker
Braun
Gillibrand
Harris
Kennedy
Lee
Markey
Merkley
Paul
Sanders
Warren
Wyden
The amendment (No. 2301), as amended, was agreed to.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No.
483, S. 4049, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2021 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Mike Crapo, Pat Roberts, John Cornyn,
John Barrasso, Cory Gardner, Roy Blunt, Thom Tillis,
Marsha Blackburn, Mike Rounds, Shelley Moore Capito,
Kevin Cramer, John Thune, James M. Inhofe, Jerry Moran,
Joni Ernst, John Boozman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S.
4049, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 86, nays 14, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 139 Leg.]
YEAS--86
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Loeffler
Manchin
McConnell
McSally
Menendez
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Young
NAYS--14
Booker
Brown
Gillibrand
Harris
Kennedy
Lee
Markey
Merkley
Paul
Romney
Sanders
Van Hollen
Warren
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). On this vote, the yeas
are 86, the nays are 14.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the opportunity to address the
issue before us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Protests
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, across America, crowds have been
assembling, saying: This is a moment in which we must not only have a
national conversation about public safety and racism, but we need
action. We need to change the scenario that exists in so many places
where public safety departments have seen one group of citizens in a
community as their clients and another group of citizens as the threat,
which leads to systemic racism, differences in approach depending on
the color of the skin of the person that you are dealing with. It may
be as simple as saying: Let's stop that person. They have dark skin,
and they are driving through this neighborhood, and maybe they don't
belong here. Let's stop that person because they have dark skin, and
maybe they are dealing drugs.
That is systemic racism and profiling.
This is a discussion about what value we should aim for here in
America. That value is that every member of the community is a client;
that there is the goal of providing equal public safety services to all
and treating each and every person the same regardless of the color of
their skin; and to have each public safety officer say ``How would I
respond differently if I saw three young teenagers running toward a
house and they were Black rather than White?'' and taking that into
account and saying ``Would it change that? Would I respond the same?''
They are all our clients. We are here to serve everyone. That is the
national discussion. People come into the streets and protest.
This is a group of African-American, Black American protesters in
Oregon. One of them is wearing a T-shirt saying ``We March, we sit
down, we speak up, we die.''
When I read that, I was thinking about the experience I had a number
of years ago when a Black American was working with me rebuilding a
house, helping me out for a few weeks. We went out into suburban
Maryland. This was back in the 1980s. We were trying to find a
particular part or piece of equipment. We didn't know where that
speciality store was. We pulled up next to a sheriff. The sheriff's car
had two White sheriffs in it and a shotgun propped up between the
seats.
I said to my friend: Hey, roll down your window and ask those
sheriffs where this place is.
He started to roll down the window. He looked over and saw the two
White sheriffs with the gun between them, and he never said a word. He
just turned back. He looked straight ahead, and he looked terrified.
I saw those sheriffs as people who work for me--who should work for
everyone--and we could ask them for their help. He saw them as people
who--if he started a dialogue with them, he might end up in deep
trouble, in physical harm. That is what this conversation is about.
That is what we are seeking to change in America.
This idea of protesting for change is as American as apple pie. This
is as American as the American Revolution, people standing up and
saying: This is not right. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly
are core values of what it means to be a ``we the people'' republic.
These protesters--often African American, often of many races--have
been coming together. There have been some folks--often younger folks--
who have come to cause a bit of trouble that goes beyond simple
protesting.
We had a challenge in Portland of White extremists--often dressing in
camouflage, antifa members who are looking for a fight--conflicting,
often late at night. Portland has worked very hard to deescalate that
situation--to deescalate it, to empower the message that the protesters
are bringing about restructuring systemic racism, ending systemic
racism. These acts, these conflicts, take away from that message.
As they worked so hard to deescalate, along came President Trump.
Trump had a different objective: He wanted to escalate violence on the
[[Page S4436]]
streets of Portland. I can tell you, there is a huge difference between
protesting and making your message known and respecting that and having
a government that respects it. It is our government, our ``we the
people'' government. And this a government--an Executive in the Oval
Office who deploys Federal forces to create chaos and violence and to
attack peaceful protesters.
I have come to the floor twice in the last 2 days to go through and
show the camouflaged, battle-ready troops deployed by Trump who are
coming in a secret fashion, eliminating any indication of whom they
work for. Are they Customs and Border Protection? Are they Federal
Protective Service? Are they U.S. Marshals? They have no identity and
have stripped all their unique identifiers, which means they can club a
peaceful protester, they can shoot them in the head, and nobody knows
who did it because there is no ID on their uniform. There is no
accountability and no discipline and outrageous attacks on peaceful
protesters.
I was here speaking yesterday, and I asked for consideration be given
on this floor for my amendment to end secret policing. It is a very
simple amendment that says: You wear identification of your agency. You
wear a unique identifier. You don't go outside your mission of
protecting a Federal building unless you are in partnership with a
Governor or a mayor. It is that simple. So simple.
But my Republican colleague came down and objected to consideration
of this amendment. I think, in essence, he didn't believe the story I
am presenting. He didn't believe the story I am telling you about
peaceful protesters being attacked. Maybe because it is so outside the
conception of what a President would do, the thought is just hard to
acknowledge, that we have a President who embraces this secret police
strategy of assaulting peaceful protesters and grabbing people out of
the crowd and throwing them into unmarked vans. It is hard to imagine.
It is hard to imagine a President of the United States admiring
authoritarian dictators across the planet, but we have a President who
admires the authoritarian dictator-style tactics of Duterte in the
Philippines and who admires the Crown Prince, who assassinated and
dismembered an American-based reporter for the Washington Post. We have
a President who admires Putin, who crushes the civil rights of his
people. We have a President who admires the strong-arm tactics Erdogan
is employing in Turkey. That is what we have. Until now, he didn't
bring the secret police to the streets of America; now he has.
I am going to try a different way of conveying what is going on and
do it in the voices of women who were there at the protests 2 nights
ago to try to convey what is happening on the streets of Portland and
how terribly, terribly wrong it is.
The message ``All Mothers Were Summoned When He Called Out to His
Mama'' is a reference to George Floyd dying with a policeman's knee on
his neck, cutting off either his air or his carotid artery, blood
supply to his brain or both, killing him. So mamas have responded. They
said: Let's go join the protesters as well. Surely this is not the
case, that they are attacking peaceful protesters.
They formed a group who went down, and they did things like dancing
and chanting and handing out flowers, like this woman here. Isn't she
beautiful? She is coming down, holding a sunflower. Others were holding
mums.
It is unimaginable that a President of the United States would send
Federal troops to attack women like this, holding peaceful flowers and
dancing and singing in the streets. But they were scared because they
knew that peaceful protesters had been attacked previously, so some of
them wore goggles, and some of them wore bike helmets.
But let's hear from the women in their own words. Two of these women
work on my team. I didn't know they were going to go down. I didn't
know until last night that they had gone down the previous night, that
they had been there. They had experiences, and they chose to share
their experiences. I have maybe another five or six things that women
wrote up about their experiences and posted them. I will try to share
those, reading it in their voice.
The first one is from Stacey Jochimsen:
I joined the Wall of Moms in Portland on Tuesday night to
support black and brown Americans and voice my concerns about
police violence in our city. I showed up in cut off shorts
and a yellow shirt--the identifier for the Portland Wall of
Moms--I was wearing sneakers and carrying yellow mums and
sunflowers that other moms had gifted me on my way in.
We participated in hours of dancing, chanting, and singing.
It was a beautiful protest on a warm Oregon night. I saw no
violence, I felt safe. We were demanding change. We were
standing up for our black and brown brothers and sisters; we
were there to amplify their voices. Was there graffiti? Sure
there was. Graffiti is not violence.
At around 11 p.m., the Wall of Moms was called to the front
of the federal courthouse. We went. We stood--arms linked--
facing the building, creating a wall of protection between
protesters and the building. We were moms called to use our
privilege to keep others safe, and we tried.
While we stood, arms linked, officers in fatigues and gas
masks (we assume were federal, they were unidentified) rushed
from the building and from behind us. There was no warning.
They took a woman to the ground and hog-tied her on the steps
of the Courthouse. They swiped at cell phones and yelled at
us from behind gas masks. They pointed weapons at us. Us. We
were non-violent, peaceful demonstrators. We were moms in
Converse sneakers holding flowers. I am still trembling at
the sight of their weapons pointed at us. I have never felt
so threatened and unsafe as I did at that moment. I had the
realization that these officers really are not here to
protect, they are here to harm. Were we going to be shot?
Would I be struck in the head by a canister? Am I going to
make it home to my children?
We held our line as they threw flashbangs and shot tear gas
canisters at us. I was peaceful, I was standing still and
holding hands with women around me--surely they would not
shoot at me. I could feel the women on both sides of me
trembling. The officers pointed their weapons at us. I put my
hands in the air and begged them not to hurt us. They shot
more tear gas. The tear gas overwhelmed us--the pain was
unimaginable. It burned my eyes, my throat, my skin. I did
not bring goggles or a helmet to this protest. I wore a tank
top and shorts. Why would I need a helmet and goggles at a
peaceful protest?
I coughed to the point of vomiting. We ran. Fellow
protesters came to us with water bottles and helped clean our
eyes. Another brought wipes to clean our skin. We coughed, we
vomited, and we cried.
Today, I am still shaking. I cannot focus. I am scared. I
am jumping at loud noises. My heart is racing simply
recalling the events of last night. I am worried about what
the federal officers are going to do to my fellow Oregonians
tonight.
Let me be clear: there was violence on Tuesday night, but
none of it was from protesters. The only violence I
encountered that night was from federal police officers.
I am grateful that I made it home to my kids last night.
Others were not so fortunate.
Thank you, Stacey, for sharing your firsthand account of the night
before last--Tuesday night--on the streets of Portland, when Federal
officers attacked peaceful demonstrators, where there was no violence
except the violence of the officers on the protesters.
This next recounting is from Amy Bacher.
She writes:
Pre-protest normalcy. There are people hanging out in a
downtown park by the Justice Center. They are wearing masks,
playing music, and, thanks to Riot Ribs, eating free food.
The Wall of Moms gathers a short distance from there, where
they hand out sunflowers and yellow carnations. Protective
gear is also distributed, like helmets, due to issues with
the Federal police firing ammunition. Medics hand out water
and other safety gear to everyone to try to keep protesters
safe.
Usually, about a few hours into the protests, the secret
police come out. It is unclear who they are now because there
are no markings for what unit--who they are with--and they
fire at the protesters. When it was the Portland Police
Bureau, they were allowed to have their badges covered.
My experience yesterday included the following: About 2,000
people gathered, chanted, gave speeches, and danced in the
blocks in front of the Justice Center and Federal Building in
the name of Black Lives Matter. People were serious about
wearing masks. A small, white plane circled the protest area
repeatedly. It appeared to be the same or similar aircraft of
the plane that circled earlier protests around Revolution
Hall. There were a few protesters trying to block a door of
the Federal Building and post graffiti. One of the chants we
shouted in front of the Federal Building was, ``Tell me what
democracy looks like.'' Then ``this is what democracy looks
like.'' We were all using our voices.
The next moment, though, about 15 to 20 large men in
camouflage and military gear appeared like they were ready
for war. They had no name tags or identifiers. We had no idea
if they were soldiers, what branch they were from, or why
they were there. Almost all of them were holding pepper spray
guns
[[Page S4437]]
and looked like they had customized sidearms. They stood
under the eaves of the Federal Building. The Wall of Moms
were there in yellow T-shirts, stretch pants, and sneakers,
basically. There was a long line--more than a block long--
facing the Federal Building. We were trying to stand in front
of all the other protesters who had already been gassed for
some 50-plus days, thinking that Trump's military would not
fire on moms. We were wrong. There was no ask by officers in
front of us to step back, move, or do anything at all. The
officers started kicking tear gas directly at us, shoving a
nearby mom in the neck, and pepper-spraying another mom in
the face at close range.
I had not been tear-gassed before and can't believe that
it's allowed, especially with such frequency. It produces
violent and immediate bodily reactions and should not be used
on peaceful protesters. There is a near-immediate reaction.
You can't see without pain of blinking. It feels like you are
inhaling fire into your lungs and like your skin is being
burned. My lungs are still burning 24 hours later. These are
weapons of war that should not be used on Portlanders
exercising their constitutional right to freedom or assembly.
If, after 54 days, officers are still using these weapons of
war and it is not working, we should be asking why--why they
are still deemed effective or legal. Just before the first
tear gas was thrown, three to four of the other officers
tackled a woman to the ground and hog-tied her. We didn't see
where she was taken. At least four women were arrested from
that group.
Then she gives a reference to the story on the web and how to find
it. She also notes that Federal agents pepper-sprayed the first aid
tent, which could be a crime when done in war.
Federal agents went by the Riot Ribs free food cart in the
park and pepper-sprayed the food and the grilles.
That is where she ends her commentary.
Thank you very much, Amy, for sharing your story of what happened the
night before last.
I hope that all of America is recognizing that what we would never
conceive of happening in America is happening--Federal agents, Federal
officers, being deployed to attack peaceful protests. As these two
women point out, there was graffiti, but it was not violent.
From one of the other letters I am about to read, I note:
There were young folks pounding on the plywood that covers
the doors of the Federal Building, but that, too, wasn't
violent. The only violence came from the Federal officers.
This next story was posted by Krista.
She writes:
So the nonviolent Wall of Moms just got gassed for
absolutely no reason.
Then she puts in the tags ``PDX protest'' and ``Black Lives Matter.''
I don't need cookies for being there. Please. I have the
privilege of taking the night off to let my lungs rest. Black
and Brown people don't get to change their skin color to take
a break from systemic and personal racism. Also, Black women
have been on the frontlines for decades. The Wall of Moms is
getting a lot of attention, but we are not the story.
Abolishing racist systems and ending police brutality against
people of color is the real story.
If you want to get involved but aren't able to go downtown,
please consider making a donation to ``Don't Shoot
Portland.''
Honestly, the leaf blowers helped so much on Monday. I was
wishing that the dads would come out in force again Tuesday
because the moms got gassed bad. It was brutal. I am still
coughing and burning 4 hours later.
Come on, dads. Until we have meaningful change, the
protests will continue. Don't give up yet.
Krista makes a point that I want to accentuate time and again: Black
Americans have been protesting, putting their lives at risk night after
night after night--all kinds of protesters coming together and all
kinds of skin color coming together in order to say Black lives matter
and that we have to end systemic racism
My colleague is here to speak.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to reserve the balance of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for
his eloquence and for the power of his remarks. He speaks not only for
Oregon but for America. He speaks for every one of our communities and
States that ought to fear this overreach. It was, indeed, one of the
main fears of our Founding Fathers that the misuse and abuse of our
military and policing power--of violating fundamental rights--would
encroach on our basic liberties.
Now, let's be very real. Federal forces were used before to restore
order in the face of violence after the Rodney King incident, after the
killing of Martin Luther King in 1968, in Little Rock in 1957, in
Oxford, MS, in 1962, and in going further back in our history, after
the Pullman Strike and after the Detroit race riots in 1943, but this
time is different. This time is fundamentally different.
As my colleague has so powerfully described from the descriptions and
the photographs that he has brought to the Senate floor, what we have
here is not some violent encroachment by one group against another and
not just some use of violence. We have peaceful protests. In fact, the
purpose and effect of the use of Federal forces here has been to incite
and fuel violence. It was the same purpose that Richard Nixon sought to
use Federal force when protesters against the Vietnam war came to
Washington. It was Richard Nixon who said that law and order was the
political issue of his day, but the use of Federal forces here is not
to restore order or to enforce the law. It is, instead, to incite
lawbreaking and violence.
What is different also is the use of unidentified, military-like
forces. We have seen a growth over the past years in the form of such
forces that are available to the President to use. The Customs and
Border Patrol, the Department of Transportation, and other agencies
have militarized Federal law enforcement agents. They have put them in
camouflage, and they have given them armaments. They have taught them
tactics that, in effect, turn them into military-style forces. They
have become secret police when they are unidentified. They are like the
little, green men in Russia who show up at demonstrations and throw
people into vans to disappear them. That is what they have been doing
in Oregon. So whereas before the National Guard might have been called
out as a show of force to restore order, now we have a perniciously
different use of military force in the name of law enforcement.
I will say, as someone whose career as a U.S. attorney and then as an
attorney general for 20 years was involved in law enforcement, I am
ashamed and embarrassed to use, in effect, secret police in this way,
supposedly in the name of law enforcement but, in reality, as a
political tool. If you have any doubt about the political purposes
here, just watch the latest Trump ads, which are the other side of this
coin--raising fear, exhorting people to panic, and then responding on
the streets in communities with this excessive use of force.
Exactly what our Founding Fathers feared was this unchecked use of
military power. That is why the bill that my colleague from Oregon has
introduced and that I have cosponsored is so very important, because
there must be a check. Accountability is vital. Identification is key.
People need to know who these people of law enforcement supposedly are,
and we need accountability from them.
We also need accountability through the Insurrection Act. In having
been joined by many of my colleagues, I have offered a bill, the CIVIL
Act, that would apply these same checks on the President's power as
apply when the President uses military abroad. He must be accountable
to Congress. He must come to Congress and explain the purposes and the
reasons for his use of military power. He should have no more leeway
when he uses troops abroad than he would at home and vice versa. If he
uses American troops against American citizens, he ought to be
accountable no less than when he uses them abroad. The same is true of
this policing power.
The importance of this moment cannot be underestimated. It is a
moment of reckoning for racial justice, but for justice in our entire
country. I believe that we must act on both sides of the aisle. We have
an obligation to assure that this power is checked, because those
police forces are coming to your city and your community--to
Albuquerque, to Chicago, and, potentially, to Hartford, Stamford, and
New Haven, CT, without the permission or invitation of our local
officials.
Again, it is a fundamental difference between many past uses of
political power and this one. And it may be rationalized or disguised
as an effort to combat violence in the streets, but we know the purpose
and intent and effect of the use of these policing forces.
[[Page S4438]]
So whether they are the Department of Justice or Homeland Security or
Department of Transportation or the Secret Service, the goal is the
same--to intimidate and incite, not to restore order.
The shame and disgrace to this Nation is palpable. When our allies,
when people abroad look to the United States, they see us as an
exception to the rule of force unchecked by the rule of law. Too often,
force, not law, applies to subjugate rights. We are an exceptional
nation because we believe in the rule of law, but what we are seeing
right now is a corruption of the rule of law, in fact, using the
disguise and misusing the name of law and order to push forward an
agenda of hatred and bias and subjugation of basic rights. It is a
shameful and tragic time for America.
My hope is Americans will rise up, that they will object with their
voices and, ultimately, with their votes.
I yield the floor back to my colleague from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut
for bringing his experience in the legal world to bear on this
extraordinary development of secret police being deployed on the
streets of America.
As we heard from the President, he wants to expand this model. It was
first in DC. Then it was Portland. Now he is talking about Philadelphia
and Baltimore, Chicago and Detroit, Oakland. In other words, all across
America, as the President says, where there happens to be Democratic
mayors, he wants to go create that same mayhem.
Thank you for bringing your expertise to bear on this.
I had just read the story from Krista about the moms and the
protesters all getting, as she put, it ``GASSED BAD.'' She said, ``It
was brutal. . . . coughing and burning 4 hours later.'' Then she closes
with, ``C'mon dads . . . we have [to have] meaningful change. Don't
give up. . . . `'
I was thinking about what I am describing, as I read these stories,
or what these women are describing is the transition from this setting,
where women are dancing; they are holding flowers; they are singing;
they are chanting; they are eating ribs; and what unfolded a few
moments later. And what unfolded?
Two of these stories, so far, have described the sudden appearance of
large men in camouflage, armed with sidearms, who shortly started to
shoot them, gas them, spray them, throw flashbang grenades, tackle
them--in one case, hogtie a woman who was a few feet away.
And you can see how terrifying--these are men dressed for war against
women dancing and holding flowers. This is beyond wrong. This is
inconceivable. These unmarked, no agency, no unique identifier secret
police--what my colleague just referred to like the little green men in
Russia, coming to sweep people off the streets and throw them into
unmarked vans.
These pictures, I understand, are from 2 nights ago, and people were
describing to me how batons were brought down--one on the neck of a
woman--how they were thrown to the ground. This is showing maybe some
of that right there. I can't imagine how terrified this woman was.
Think about this: Within this week where we are recognizing John
Lewis passing away--here is John Lewis on the Edmund Pettus Bridge
being beaten by so-called public safety officers; I think they were
Alabama police, but I am not sure who they were; they have badges; at
least they weren't secret police--and this scene from 2 nights ago in
Portland, these women being assaulted by these men ready for war with
every armament you can think about, including impact projectiles; that
is, rubber bullets and gas and flashbang grenades and batons,
assaulting these women dressed in yellow T-shirts.
I want to stress, as this last letter did, that for weeks and weeks
and weeks before there was a ``wall of moms,'' protesters of every race
were coming down to say we must reform systemic racism in America, and
they, too, were peacefully protesting, and they, too, were standing,
often with arms linked.
The outrage over the Federal troops being deployed with these secret
police tactics has swelled the numbers, including this most recent
protest, but let's not think for a moment there haven't been people of
great courage week after week, many of them organized and led by the
Black population and Black leaders of Portland.
How is it possible--Edmund Pettus Bridge, where a little over a year
ago I was standing with my daughter and John Lewis, remembering what
happened back when, when out-of-control leaders sent well-armed men to
brutally assault peaceful protesters, and now, once again, we have out-
of-control men, the President of the United States, sending well-armed
men to brutally beat peaceful protesters. How is this conceivable?
Protesters of all kinds have been working hard to basically say let's
have public safety that works for all. But what is the President doing?
While he is sending these forces to brutally beat peaceful protesters,
he is running campaign ads, and here it is: ``You won't be safe in Joe
Biden's America. Paid for by Donald J. Trump for President.''
He is deliberately assaulting peaceful protesters in order to run
campaign commercials that say he is a strong man who can reduce
violence in America.
Let us all beware how twisted this is, how evil this is, how wrong
this is, how much of an assault on the civil liberties of Americans
this is, and how much we have a responsibility, having taken an oath to
the Constitution, to put an end to it, which is why I am down here for
the third day in a row saying: Let's insist that Federal officers be
identified by whom they represent, the agency. Let's insist Federal
officers have a unique identifier. Let's insist that if their mission
is to protect a Federal building, they are on the perimeter of the
Federal building, not sweeping through the streets of Portland,
throwing people into unmarked vans
That is my amendment. That is the amendment I am asking to be
considered on this floor. Isn't it our responsibility to debate when
egregious things happen in America, like a strongman, authoritarian
President trampling on the Constitution by assaulting peaceful
protestors with Federal forces? Isn't it our responsibility to debate
it and vote on whether secret police are allowed in the United States
of America?
I have been reading these letters from the women who were down there.
I will read one or two more, and then I am going to yield to my
colleague from Oregon.
As the two Senators from Oregon, we have heard from hundreds of
people who have been protesting peacefully over these weeks and how
hard local leaders have worked to deescalate, and how Trump, sending in
these Federal forces to beat protestors--peaceful protestors--has
completely escalated the situation, rather than deescalating it, all so
Donald Trump can run a campaign commercial and try to persuade you he
should be President.
This story recounting is written by Joy, and she was down there with
Krista, so she starts out:
I don't know how my friend, Krista, managed to take a
picture during the madness of this moment. I could not see
anything and was struggling to breathe through the mass of
foamy snot provoked by teargas that filled my mask.
And she had posted a picture that Krista had taken of her right after
she had been gassed. I don't think I have the--do I have the picture? I
might have. Let me see if we can--no. If I find it, I will put it up.
Getting gassed was painful and scary, yet still I felt
secure and cared for by the several helpers that aided us
with water and saline eye washes. Several people checked in
to see if we were ok and help. That is the beautiful part of
this otherwise unpleasant image. This is me on my knees,
being helped by strangers. The ugly part of this moment is
what happened before this . . . the moment when federal
agents blasted us with teargas and rubber bullets despite
ZERO provocation from our line of moms . . . we were simply
standing side by side with linked arms. That's it. For no
apparent reason they shot at a bunch of moms without giving a
single warning. Nope, no warning. No request to move. They
just blasted away at us like they were playing a video game.
I yield to my colleague from Oregon and reserve the balance of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
[[Page S4439]]
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague for putting
a human face--the face of Oregonians--on this Federal invasion of our
State.
And I want to talk just for a moment and ask my colleague a question
because, yesterday, here in Washington, as our constituents were
finding this horrific invasion of their constitutional rights--the moms
and others, when they were peacefully protesting--what we saw in the
Senate Intelligence Committee, I say to Senator Merkley, was an example
of just how disconnected the Trump administration is from reality as
they try to find these figleafs to cover up for their violation of the
constitutional rights of our citizens.
We had a nominee for a top legal position in the Trump
administration--a top position, legal position, that is greatly going
to affect the constitutional rights of the people we are honored to
represent--the rights that are now being violated, as we have said
repeatedly here on the floor.
The nominee's name was Patrick Hovakimian, and I asked him a couple
of basic questions, questions that our constituents are asking.
I asked him: Do you believe that Federal forces can patrol American
cities over the objections of State and local officials and away from
Federal buildings?
That is something you and I get asked all the time by our
constituents.
Then I also asked him: Do you believe that unidentified Federal
forces in unmarked cars can drive around seizing and detaining American
citizens?
This is also something we are very familiar with. I pointed out
American troops, our soldiers who so courageously fight the terrorists,
wear their identification. Again, he just ducked and bobbed and weaved.
At one point--and then he repeated it--he said: Senator, just give my
best wishes to the people of Portland.
I asked again for a responsive answer, and he wished us best wishes
again for these people who are getting gassed, like Sharon Meieran--
whom the Senator and I talked about, a personal friend of our family,
an emergency room doctor--getting hit with a tear gas canister--
``sending best wishes'' to the people you and I represent.
So it seems to me--and I would be interested in the Senator's
thoughts because he has spent a lot of time thinking through where this
is headed because we in Oregon were kind of the test tube. We were the
people who were going to be first. The President has said that he is
going on to other cities.
Both of us share a great interest in healthcare. I sure as hell wish
that he would attack the coronavirus with half of the intensity with
which he has attacked our cities. We are going to talk some more about
that.
Let me get the Senator's reaction to what I think is the central
question, and I really pondered this as we were listening to these
nonanswers yesterday by a top Trump official. By the way, he is in a
top position now in the Justice Department responsible for knowing
about these legal issues that reflect the violations of the
constitutional rights of our constituents, and then he gets a bigger
job, a bigger role in these issues. I thought to myself, it seems to
me, without drawing a line in the sand, America may be looking down the
barrel of martial law in the middle of a Presidential election. I would
be interested in the thoughts my colleague because I have been amazed
at the number of Senators who have come up and said: You know, Ron,
that really seems to be what it has come down to.
My colleague is a student of history and has brought so much specific
documentation, such as the cases he has been spelling out. I would be
interested in my colleague's assessment of where he thinks this is
going.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. I thank the Senator for asking for my thoughts on this.
Just before he spoke, I had described the story of Joy, who talked
about the hit that her friend Krista had taken during this chaos after
she had been gassed. I did check, and here is the picture of her. You
can see her whole face is inflamed. There are so many people who can't
see. They are dazed, and their lungs are on fire, and Patrick
Hovakimian is sending best wishes to the people of Oregon.
It reminds me of a cartoon I saw when I was young in which Lucy goes
out after it is observed how cold Snoopy is, out shivering on top of
his doghouse during a snowstorm, and Lucy goes out and says ``Hope you
stay warm,'' and goes back into her house. Yeah--``Best wishes, but I
am not doing a thing to help you out.''
I would love for Mr. Hovakimian to say: I will come and stand there.
I will see what is really going on, and if peaceful protesters are
being attacked, that is simply unacceptable, and as a leader I will
take it to President Trump and tell President Trump that we don't do
secret police in America. We don't sweep people into vans, and if you
really want me to take this position, that is what I am going to change
the policy to because that is what you do in a republic. We are not a
dictatorship.
That is what I would like to hear him say in response to your
question to him.
You asked about martial law. Secret police operating as rogue
operators outside the framework of law, outside of the cooperation of
the Governor or the mayor sound like the equivalent of martial law to
me.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, how much additional time does my
colleague have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Oregon has 26 minutes
postcloture.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for
his intense representation of these legal issues and the role of the
Intelligence Committee, noting that this has all the trappings of a
President bent on the equivalent of martial law, operating in this
rogue fashion, shredding the constitutional rights of people, sending
Federal officers to attack peaceful protesters.
I was reading the stories of women who were down at the protests the
night before last. The next one is from Stephanie.
She says:
I went downtown again last night to peacefully protest. To
use my voice and my 1st Amendment rights. To feel safe--
repeat: TO FEEL SAFE--against these anonymous federal agents.
I wore:
--A bike helmet
--Goggles
--A double mask
--Ear plugs
And I was still terrified. The #WallofMoms stood locked,
arm in arm, right up against the fence line at the federal
courthouse. We stood between these federal agents dressed in
war gear and unarmed protesters shouting behind us. Sweat
poured down my back. The Moms stood for hours. On my bike
ride home I texted [an individual] Geoff [not me] each time I
stopped and called Amy . . . to have a ``buddy'' on the phone
with me. Every time I heard a car, my heart skipped a beat.
Is it a crew of federal kidnappers, ready to throw me into a
van? This administration has been chipping away at our rights
since day 1, but this past week in Portland has been an
acceleration. Wake up, especially those supporting them. We
are in a crisis of great magnitude and we are about to lose
control.
Candace Jimenez, member of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs,
said she came out to protest after the deployment of Federal agents,
and said:
We have been dealing with that for 500 years. We understand
the trauma, the terrorism, and the harm it causes.
Bev writes:
In less than eight hours, a group of moms helped me put
together this #WallofMoms.
We tried in earnest to give the kids a break by shifting
the pervasive narrative that protesters are rioters.
Case and point, we wore our whitest whites to show we
weren't there to make trouble, we showed up to prove that the
feds are the violent ones. . . . And we were right. Kids took
down fences and did some skateboarding, two or three kids
[banged] on walls, but the other people were peaceful.
I want to tell you that I didn't vomit or pee my pants
after being gassed, but I did. I guess I lost control . . .
and soon after I couldn't open my eyes.
To be clear, we moms weren't armed, [we weren't] throwing
rocks, [we weren't] throwing water. That didn't happen.
We were gassed for chanting ``Leave the kids alone.''
I want you to think about what's happening in this country
and ask yourself how you're going to help change it.
Heather was down at the protests, and I don't have her picture, her
larger picture, but I can tell you that she posted a picture. She is
very pregnant. How gutsy I think that is that she was there, even as
she is about to give birth.
[[Page S4440]]
She writes:
I am . . . 9mo pregnant . . . and I stood between the
police and the rest of the protesters last night with about
40 other moms. My unborn baby is the topic of many Twitter
debates right now and symbolizes a thousand year old debate
among those who want to stifle women's freedom. Right now I
have even more power than usual and I am here to use it.
I am SAFE. Thanks everybody for your concern. But we are
NOT OK.
Until all women can carry a pregnancy to term . . . and
birth without worrying about unnecessary trauma and death we
are not OK.
I show up for all of the pregnant women who have lost their
babies or their lives at the hands of racist and sexist
systems and people. I show up for the women who have had a
hard time getting pregnant because of the everyday stress
caused by racism. I march for all of the Black mothers who
rightfully agonize about their children's safety outside of
their homes. I march for anyone who has been injured
physically or mentally by police brutality, citizen
brutality, systemic inequity, intergenerational trauma and
poverty. I march for the White people finally waking up--see
me and get [me], get out, pay up, and listen! I march for all
of us because this is a problem for ALL of us. When you say
ALL lives matter take into account what you are doing in your
life to improve the world for ALL people. . . . Are you
worried about my unborn child? (please answer these questions
in your hearts.) Get the hell out there and stand up for a
better world for my baby and his generation.
Madam President, I reserve the balance of my time and yield to my
colleague from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Parliamentary inquiry, how much time does my colleague
have on his hour remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Oregon has 20 minutes.
Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, I will take a few, and we are very pleased that
our colleague from Illinois is here and has been a very significant
ally in this.
Senator Merkley, one of the reasons I so appreciate your taking this
time is that it reminds me a bit of what Jews faced in the 1930s.
My family fled the Nazis in the 1930s. Not all of our family got out.
My father's great-uncle Max was one of the last gassed in
Theresienstadt, and Jewish families saw that a democratically elected
government can transform into a murderous regime before the eyes of its
citizens very quickly. There isn't any bright line when it happens, no
cinematic moment where everything changes--just a moment, as we talked
about earlier, in which bureaucrats and lawyers and police begin to
follow the bidding of their leader while perverting the rules of their
Republic.
This was not a singular event. From Europe to Asia to the Americas,
democratically elected governments were undermined and replaced by
authoritarian regimes--often while retaining the trappings of a
democracy. Bureaucrats claimed they were just following rules, soldiers
and police--just following orders. Then they just wished us best
wishes.
Rarely did these leaders start with majority support, but terror,
combined with the abuse of the elections process--which we are also
very concerned about--allows them to claim power from the ballot box.
It seems to me you are laying out that it is our sacred duty to learn
from this history, to bring this history to the floor and, as I tried
to say with respect to the threat of martial law, to draw a bright line
when a government, instituted to protect liberty, is being used to
attack liberty. We shouldn't, we cannot, and we can't wait until we
have a gun at our back to raise the alarm.
The government isn't going to defend itself. The same Attorney
General that has taken an oath to defend the Constitution will sit idly
by while citizens are detained without charge and violently assaulted
by the government. The same police officer charged with defending our
citizens will commit those assaults if that is what they are directed
to do.
If the Executive and any government served by the bureaucracy will
take all the power they can unless a brave judiciary and a strong
legislature step up and, as you have outlined here on this floor, say:
``No more.''
This Congress has been way too pliant in yielding, and it has
emboldened the executive branch, led by Donald Trump, to ignore the
constraints that have traditionally protected our liberty.
So my question is--it seems to me you are standing up for these kinds
of core values of freedoms that are what we stand for as Americans and
that this has been the beacon all around the world for over a century.
I believe what you are saying--and I think it would be helpful for you
to put it in your own words--what you are saying is that we have to be
out here working on your legislation and working on these key kinds of
measures because without this effort, there is a real danger, on our
watch, that the light of liberty will fade away? And it seems to me
what you are saying is that we are better than this.
I would like your reaction to that because I think if you look at the
march of history, which in the Wyden household is very, very personal--
to have lost family to Hitler's murderous regime. I would like to hear
your thoughts about this kind of challenge we face and how important
the work in front of us is to make sure that light of liberty doesn't
fade away.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, my colleague described how his family
was affected by fascism in Germany and how his family members died for
fascism--attacking them, imprisoning them in concentration camps, and
putting them to death. Don't we all believe that every German citizen
should have stood up to that fascism and said: Not here; not by our
government; not by our people.
That is exactly why we are on the floor right now to say: Secret
police--not here, not by our government, and not allowed in our
Republic. Sweeping people off the street into unmarked vans--not
allowed, not here, not our government, and we will put an end to it.
Gassing, assaulting, and batoning peaceful protesters on the streets of
our city--not here, not allowed, and we will put an end to it.
I yield to my colleague, who I believe wishes to speak.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would like to direct a question to the
junior Senator from Oregon through the Chair.
I thank both my colleagues from Oregon. I especially thank my
colleague Senator Merkley, who contacted me last weekend when the
situation was unfolding in Portland and talked to me about his reaction
to it and what he was hearing from the people of the State he
represents.
Of course, there was genuine concern in the city of Chicago, which I
am honored to represent, because this President in the White House had
been taking swipes at that city for years now, and we fully anticipated
that the atrocity that was occurring in Portland could occur in Chicago
as well.
I just want to say to the Senator from Oregon: Thank you for your
leadership on this. Thank you for bringing this issue to the floor and
to the floor of the Senate.
This is an issue we should be voting on. We should have voted on it
this week. There was no excuse for it. We have risen to the occasion
before when a historic occurrence brings to our attention that the
Senate should speak and express itself. We should have done it this
week on the issue that you brought, and I hope we can resort to this
issue quickly--if not today, as quickly as possible afterward.
I am a cosponsor of the legislation the Senator is offering, and it
is basic. It is fundamental. As I recall, and I will ask the Senator
from Oregon, what you are asking for is, if the Federal Government is
going to send out the so-called law enforcement protective forces and
such, that they identify themselves and that they not come into a
community anonymously, without any indication of who they are.
I am reminded of the Russian invasion of Ukraine--eastern portions of
Ukraine, the Donetsk region--and Vladimir Putin was very careful that
his invaders not wear Russian uniforms. They were known as little green
men. We have a comparable situation here where the Federal forces are
not identifying the agencies they represent but coming to the streets
of Portland in camouflage.
The Senator from Oregon, I would like you to please, if you would,
respond. Has this not been the case? Has this been documented?
[[Page S4441]]
Mr. MERKLEY. To my colleague from Illinois, that is exactly right, as
seen in this picture and the testimony of all those who are present.
Mark Morgan, the Customs and Border Protection Commissioner, said
that is not the case, and he said: ``Our personnel are clearly marked
as federal [law enforcement officers] & have unique identifiers.'' They
were not. They are operating, as you say, like little green men, secret
police.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask another question through the Chair to
the Senator from Oregon.
Is it not also true that many of these Federal agencies have defined
responsibilities and defined areas of jurisdiction? For example, in the
city of Chicago, as probably is the case in Portland, OR, there is a
Federal protective service that has a specific building and facility
and personnel in that facility that they are responsible for. Is that
not the case in Oregon?
Mr. MERKLEY. That is the case.
Mr. DURBIN. And in this situation, have these Federal agents of some
different agency or whatever extended their reach of jurisdiction
beyond that Federal protective facility?
Mr. MERKLEY. They have.
Mr. DURBIN. How far?
Mr. MERKLEY. Well, they have been present in the streets. I don't
know just how many blocks from the Federal building but certainly not
just in the perimeter of the Federal property. They have swept through
streets. They have vans that have gone through the streets. They have
grabbed protesters and thrown them into vans. So they have departed
significantly from, if you will, the mission of defending the Federal
building.
Mr. DURBIN. Directing another question to the Senator through the
Chair.
What has been the coordination of this Federal activity with local
and State law enforcement in Portland, OR?
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I request unanimous consent that our
dialogue be credited to my colleague's 1 hour because I am afraid my
minutes will run out.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. You asked about coordination. My understanding is that
there was not an invitation from the mayor to come, and there was not a
conversation with the Governor. There certainly was no conversation
with Senator Wyden and me and the other members of the delegation. The
Portland police have indicated that they have not worked in cooperation
with these Federal forces. They may have been engaged in what they call
deconfliction, and I don't know the full extent of that.
Mr. DURBIN. Well, I don't know if I am on my own time at this moment
or----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. You are.
Mr. DURBIN. Fine. So I will still continue, without objection, with
colloquy between myself and the junior Senator from Oregon.
Let me say to the Senator that we were concerned at the beginning of
this week, because of your experience, with what might happen in the
city of Chicago. Senator Duckworth and I sent a letter to the President
of the United States expressing that concern.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter dated July 21, 2020, to
President Trump, along with the press release dated July 22, 2020,
describing its contents, be printed in the Record
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2020.
President Donald J. Trump,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear President Trump: You have indicated that you may send
additional federal agents to the City of Chicago to conduct
policing activities that traditionally are handled by local
law enforcement. We strongly urge you to refrain from taking
this action, which is opposed by Governor Pritzker, Mayor
Lightfoot and other local leaders. This week, we introduced
legislation with other Senate Democrats to prevent you from
overriding local authorities in this manner.
Any involvement by federal law enforcement in community
policing activity must be conducted in coordination with, and
with the approval of, local officials. In this time of
heightened tension, we cannot have federal law enforcement
operating at cross-purposes with local leaders.
In recent days, your Administration has deployed federal
law enforcement agents in the streets of Portland, Oregon,
without any visible identifying information. These federal
agents have reportedly used excessive force against peaceful
protestors and detained residents in unmarked vehicles. Such
conduct is unacceptable anywhere in the United States and
must not happen in the Chicagoland area.
On February 10, 2017, we sent you a letter suggesting a
range of ways in which the federal government could play a
helpful and supportive role in reducing violence in Chicago.
We noted that ``[p]ublic safety is primarily a local
responsibility, but the federal government must be an engaged
partner in public safety efforts alongside local officials,
law enforcement, and community stakeholders.'' We recommended
that your Administration take steps to assist local violence
prevention efforts, including:
Enhancing Department of Justice (DOJ) programs that improve
community policing;
Directing DOJ to promote mentoring and job training
programs for youth and formerly incarcerated individuals;
Improving mentoring and violence prevention initiatives and
boosting funding for recidivism reduction programs;
Directing DOJ to abide by its commitment to help implement
policing reforms recommended by the Department's Civil Rights
Division;
Closing gaps in the FBI gun background check system and in
federal firearm laws that enable straw purchasers and gun
traffickers to flood Chicago's streets with illicit guns;
Prioritizing career and youth training programs to address
lack of economic opportunity in neighborhoods hit hard by
violence; and
Redirecting resources that you are devoting to construction
of your border wall and committing those resources instead to
the efforts discussed above.
It has been more than three years since then, and you have
not replied to our letter nor followed through with our
suggestions. We reiterate that these steps would be more
effective in reducing violence in Chicago than replicating
the destabilizing role that you have directed federal law
enforcement to play in Portland.
With the right leadership, federal law enforcement can
serve as valuable partners in supporting local efforts and
helping reduce violence in American communities, rather than
contravening local efforts and exacerbating tensions. It's
not too late for you to demonstrate such leadership.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin,
U.S. Senator.
Tammy Duckworth,
U.S. Senator.
____
[Press Release, July 22, 2020]
Durbin, Duckworth Statement on Expansion of DOJ Operation Legend to
Chicago
The Expansion Of Operation Legend Will Consist Of An Increased Federal
Law Enforcement Presence From FBI, DEA, ATF, U.S. Marshals, and HSI,
Focused On Providing Support To Existing Violent Crime Task Forces
Washington.--U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Tammy
Duckworth (D-IL) today released the following statement
regarding the Department of Justice (DOJ) announcing an
expansion of Operation Legend to Chicago, Illinois. Operation
Legend is DOJ's violent crime reduction initiative with the
stated goal to provide support and assistance to state and
local law enforcement partners as they work to combat violent
crime, and gun violence in particular. Durbin and Duckworth
are set to speak with U.S. Attorney John Lausch about
Operation Legend today.
``After needless threats from the President, we're relieved
the Trump Administration says they plan to work with local
officials and authorities in Chicago rather than undermine
local law enforcement and endanger our civil rights, as their
agents have done in Portland. We will continue closely
monitoring the Administration's efforts to ensure they follow
through with this commitment.
``More than three years ago, we sent President Trump a
letter suggesting a range of ways in which the Federal
Government could work in partnership with local officials to
provide support and resources to assist in public safety,
violence prevention, and economic development efforts in
Chicago. While we are hopeful that today's announcement means
the Administration has reconsidered and will take a more
positive approach, President Trump still has not replied to
our letter nor followed through with our suggestions. We
reiterate that these steps would be more effective in
reducing violence in Chicago than any effort the
Administration may take to replicate the destabilizing role
it played in Portland.''
In their 2017 letter which they reiterated yesterday,
Durbin and Duckworth recommended that the Trump
Administration take steps to assist local violence prevention
efforts, including:
Enhancing Department of Justice (DOJ) programs that improve
community policing;
Directing DOJ to promote mentoring and job training
programs for youth and formerly incarcerated individuals;
Improving mentoring and violence prevention initiatives and
boosting funding for recidivism reduction programs;
Directing DOJ to abide by its commitment to help implement
policing reforms recommended by the Department's Civil Rights
Division;
[[Page S4442]]
Closing gaps in the FBI gun background check system and in
federal firearm laws that enable straw purchasers and gun
traffickers to flood Chicago's streets with illicit guns;
Prioritizing career and youth training programs to address
lack of economic opportunity in neighborhoods hit hard by
violence; and
Redirecting resources that are being devoted to
construction of border wall and committing those resources
instead to the efforts discussed above.
The expansion of Operation Legend will consist of an
increased federal law enforcement presence in Albuquerque,
New Mexico, and in Chicago, Illinois. This federal law
enforcement presence will consist of experienced
investigative agents from FBI, DEA, ATF, U.S. Marshals, and
HSI, focused on providing support to existing violent crime
task forces.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would say to the Senator from Oregon
that the Department of Justice made an announcement yesterday that they
were, in fact, sending, I assume, a number of Federal agents--150--into
Chicago in pursuit of an operation known as Operation Legend. This is
an operation which began July 8, 2020, by the Federal Government
starting in Kansas City because of the death of a 4-year-old young man,
Legend Taliferro, shot and killed in the early morning hours in Kansas
City on June 29.
I received a phone call this morning from John Lausch, the U.S.
attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, a man whom I was
instrumental in selecting and supporting and still do support to this
day--his professional activities--who gave me his personal assurance
that what happened in Oregon was not going to happen in Chicago; that
this Operation Legend, as he described it to me, was in coordination
with State and local law enforcement in the city of Chicago, the State
of Illinois, to make certain that their activities were coordinated and
known in advance and that they were focusing on gun violence and drug
trafficking in the city of Chicago.
I have also been alerted by Mayor Lori Lightfoot that she has
received the same assurances and briefing, as well as Governor J.B.
Pritzker of Illinois.
So our circumstances are different from the ones that Portland faced.
I will tell you that we are going to hold Mr. Lausch and the Department
of Justice and all others to their word that we will not see in Chicago
anything like we witnessed in the streets of Portland, OR.
I just want to say in closing to the Senator from Oregon: Thank you
for bringing this to our attention because when we were alerted--the
Governor, the mayor of Chicago--Senator Duckworth and I both jumped on
this immediately and contacted the Trump administration for clarity
about what was going to happen in Chicago. We have been given these
assurances.
I ask unanimous consent that the lengthy press release, which
describes the activities that are going to take place, again, with the
knowledge and coordination of local law enforcement, be printed in the
Record at this point
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:
[Press Release, July 21, 2020]
Durbin, Duckworth Call Out President Trump on Reports of Plan To Send
Secret Police to Chicago
Senators Introduce Legislation To Block The Trump Administration From
Deploying Federal Forces as a Shadowy Paramilitary Against Americans
Washington.--Following reports that President Donald Trump
wants to send federal agents into cities, including Chicago,
to conduct policing activities that are traditionally handled
by local law enforcement, U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL)
and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) today sent a letter to President
Trump calling on him to refrain from taking this action,
which is opposed by Governor Pritzker, Mayor Lightfoot, and
other local leaders.
``With the right leadership, federal law enforcement can
serve as valuable partners in supporting local efforts and
helping reduce violence in American communities, rather than
contravening local efforts and exacerbating tensions. It's
not too late for you to demonstrate such leadership,'' Durbin
and Duckworth wrote.
Yesterday, Durbin and Duckworth joined Senators Jeff
Merkley (D-OR), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and 17 of their Senate
colleagues to introduce the Preventing Authoritarian Policing
Tactics on America's Streets Act, which was also introduced
as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.
The bill would block the Trump Administration from deploying
federal forces as a shadowy paramilitary against Americans.
The legislation comes after a week in which heavily armed,
unmarked federal forces in unmarked vehicles were filmed
grabbing protesters off the street in Portland, Oregon.
In February 2017, Durbin and Duckworth sent a letter to
President Trump suggesting a range of ways in which the
federal government could work in partnership with local
officials to provide support and resources to assist in
public safety, violence prevention, and economic development
efforts in Chicago.
Full text of today's letter is available here and below:
July 21, 2020.
Dear President Trump: You have indicated that you may send
additional federal agents to the City of Chicago to conduct
policing activities that traditionally are handled by local
law enforcement We strongly urge you to refrain from taking
this action, which is opposed by Governor Pritzker, Mayor
Lightfoot and other local leaders. This week, we will
introduce legislation with other Senate Democrats to prevent
you from overriding local authorities in this manner.
Any involvement by federal law enforcement in community
policing activity must be conducted in coordination with, and
with the approval of, local officials. In this time of
heightened tension, we cannot have federal law enforcement
operating at cross-purposes with local leaders.
In recent days, your Administration has deployed federal
law enforcement agents in the streets of Portland, Oregon,
without any visible identifying information. These federal
agents have reportedly used excessive force against peaceful
protestors and detained residents in unmarked vehicles. Such
conduct is unacceptable anywhere in the United States and
must not happen in the Chicagoland area.
On February 10, 2017, we sent you a letter suggesting a
range of ways in which the federal government could play a
helpful and supportive role in reducing violence in Chicago.
We noted that ``[p]ublic safety is primarily a local
responsibility, but the federal government must be an engaged
partner in public safety efforts alongside local officials,
law enforcement, and community stakeholders.'' We recommended
that your Administration take steps to assist local violence
prevention efforts, including:
Enhancing Department of Justice (DOJ) programs that improve
community policing;
Directing DOJ to promote mentoring and job training
programs for youth and formerly incarcerated individuals;
Improving mentoring and violence prevention initiatives and
boosting funding for recidivism reduction programs;
Directing DOJ to abide by its commitment to help implement
policing reforms recommended by the Department's Civil Rights
Division;
Closing gaps in the FBI gun background check system and in
federal firearm laws that enable straw purchasers and gun
traffickers to flood Chicago's streets with illicit guns;
Prioritizing career and youth training programs to address
lack of economic opportunity in neighborhoods hit hard by
violence; and
Redirecting resources that you are devoting to construction
of your border wall and committing those resources instead to
the efforts discussed above.
It has been more than three years since then, and you have
not replied to our letter nor followed through with our
suggestions. We reiterate that these steps would be more
effective in reducing violence in Chicago than replicating
the destabilizing role that you have directed federal law
enforcement to play in Portland.
With the right leadership, federal law enforcement can
serve as valuable partners in supporting local efforts and
helping reduce violence in American communities, rather than
contravening local efforts and exacerbating tensions. It's
not too late for you to demonstrate such leadership.
Sincerely, * * *
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, what happened in Portland, OR, is
unacceptable in the United States of America. We have heard the
historical analogies from the senior Senator from Oregon where
authoritarian central governments moved into an area and took control.
We have seen the historic parallel in the eastern reaches of Ukraine,
in Crimea. We know what it looks like because history has shown us. We
don't want this occurring in the United States of America.
I am sorry for those who were injured and bear the scars of this
Federal incursion in the city of Portland, OR. I stand with the junior
Senator from Oregon. We will call and we will pass, I hope, on a
bipartisan basis the reassertion of the basic principles of this
country when it comes to the separation of powers and when it comes to
the dignity which we ask in the streets of America under our
Constitution.
I thank the junior Senator from Oregon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I thank my colleague so much for coming
down to stand up for the people of
[[Page S4443]]
his home State and say that ``secret police don't belong in my State,
in my city of Chicago, or anywhere in the United States'' and that we
should act on this floor to make sure that is not the case.
We must work and fight for the citizens all across this country. It
would be the right thing for us to debate my simple amendment that
says: ID, and you stay in the near vicinity of a Federal property, and
you don't engage in these attacks on peaceful protesters.
We should debate it. If people disagree with it, they should stand up
and explain why. Maybe we can come to a common understanding. Do you
know how rare it is for Senators to come down and actually have
dialogue and debate? It just doesn't happen. On something as important
as this, shouldn't every Member be here weighing in and considering it?
How much time do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Oregon has 18 minutes.
Mr. MERKLEY. I am going to read another story from a woman who was at
the protest 2 nights ago. Her name is Tiffany. She says:
I was there. Let it be known that police fired on peaceful
protesters. The Feds are here. This is really happening in
#portland. . . . knowing the risks, in the middle of a
pandemic, mothers of our city formed a chain to protect the
peaceful protesters. We stood united with flowers, yellow
shirts . . . and peace signs.
I thought I would put up again the picture of this protester with her
flowers.
She continues:
Behind the safety of their fence, the police fired upon a
small number of us with their ``non-lethal'' bullets. As a
symbol, I used my baby's blanket to attempt to shield myself.
They therefore knew exactly what they were doing. They heard
our peaceful calls and fired anyway.
When the fence fell, and the mothers continued to protest
peacefully from the side, the police threw tear gas at us. We
had to [scatter] into the streets, stumbling, trying to keep
our masks on, trying to avoid more gas and cars.
When we attempted to regroup, the Feds had arrived. Some of
us just trying to make our way to our cars, found our way
blocked by federal agents in full combat gear.
Full combat gear.
They too fired gas at unarmed protesters, including myself.
I yelled ``You are in violation of the US Constitution. You
are in violation of the Bill of Rights. I own my home in
Portland, Oregon. I pay my taxes in Portland, Oregon. I have
a right to walk on my own street without being assaulted by
my government. I have a right to be here''. . . . They
silenced us with more gas.
See the images for yourself.
When the government attempts to take your liberty, that is
when it is appropriate to risk your life. Nonetheless, you
will notice we took every precaution to stop the spread.
Every single one of us wore a mask. We had people spraying
hand sanitizer from spray bottles. But you know, once you got
gassed, it is very hard not to spread water droplets. Gas
makes your nose and eyes pour water like a faucet! Not
necessarily nonlethal force when we are in the middle of a
Pandemic.
I reserve the balance of my time, and yield to my colleague from
Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator breaking for a
moment to allow me to just a say few words. I might pose a question to
him, if he chooses to answer with the remaining part of his time.
I want to make sure that my remarks are counted toward my time, not
Senator Merkley's time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.
Mr. MURPHY. Senator Merkley and I serve on the Foreign Relations
Committee together, and what we have watched together, over the course
of our time on that committee, is a reversal of what was called by some
scholars ``the end of history.'' There was this idea that democracy was
going to be triumphant in the world; that in the wake of the fall of
the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall, democracy--participatory, open
democracies--and capitalist economies had, effectively, won the fight
and that it was just a matter of time before the rest the world was
living in a system like ours that respects the rule of law and allows
for those who want to protest their government to do so under the
protection of law. And much of our outreach to the Communist Party in
China during the 1980s and 1990s came under the presumption that even
China would eventually fall under the crushing weight of an advancing
democracy.
We now know that to not be true because we are at a moment in time in
which we hear on the Foreign Relations Committee uninterrupted
testimony of countries that we would have, even just a decade ago,
accepted and named as a democracy, starting to slide away from the rule
of law, away from the protection of speech into something else.
Now, you don't go from a democracy into an autocracy overnight. So
many of the countries we are concerned about are in that transition. We
hope that an active United States, playing a role for democracy
promotion in the world, can help pull them back. But it is a reminder--
it is a reminder--that democracy in many ways is a very unnatural
mechanism to control or run your life or society
I always remind my constituents back home that there aren't many
other things in life that are really important that you run by
democratic vote. You don't run your business by democratic vote. Your
kid's sports team doesn't run by democratic vote. I love my 8-year-old
and 11-year-old, but they don't get an equal vote in the decisions in
my household.
Democracy is fairly unnatural. We don't really choose it as a
mechanism to run other institutions in this country, but we reserve it
for government. We reserve it for government, but it only remains, it
only survives, it only perseveres if we tend to it, and we have not
been tending to it over the last 3 years.
I rise to support Senator Merkley and his effort because I have
watched what these other governments do at the outset--these would be
autocrats--what they do to try to gently begin to quell people's
interest in free speech. The tactics that are being used in Portland,
the tactics that were used just down the street, in the Nation's
Capital, the tactics that are being contemplated for other cities
throughout this country are reminiscent of tactics that have been
proven successful in other countries to try to push people back inside
their homes and to try to disincentivize their interests in speaking up
against power, because, I am going to tell you, as word spreads that if
you run out to the streets to protest your government, you may be
requisitioned and shoved into an unmarked vehicle, if you are a single
mom, who can't disappear for an hour, never mind a day, you aren't
going to be that interested in going out and speaking freely. All of a
sudden, if the government is starting to come down like a ton of bricks
with Federal troops, with sweeps of peaceful protesters off the streets
and into confinement, it does start to chill people's interest in
standing up. And that is why governments across the world have tried to
pioneer these practices.
They say they are still democracies. They say they still observe the
rule of law, but, then, when people try to go out and protest, they
throw the military at them. They start to snatch people off the
streets, and, all of a sudden, people start to think to themselves that
they are better off just staying in their homes. They are better off
not protesting their government because the consequences now feel too
significant.
I know, Senator Merkley, that a lot of folks claim that we are
engaged in a hyperbole when we talk about the risks to democracy
presented by this administration, but through our collective seats on
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, we see what is happening around
the world. We see the ways in which, drip by drip, an open
participatory democracy can all of a sudden start to foreclose the
rights of people to be able to petition their government.
We should just remember that over the course of history, it is .001
percent of citizens who have lived in a democracy. This is not actually
how the world has chosen to organize itself. We now have these
templates. We now have these models provided to us by people like the
leader in Turkey or the new President in the Philippines by which we
should be cautioned in the ways in which we start to constrain speech,
the ways in which we start to punish speech, the ways in which we start
to make people believe that there is so much risk in speaking out
against their government that they are better off just accepting
whatever comes their way.
[[Page S4444]]
So I come to the floor today as someone who introduced legislation
requiring the identification of military forces when they are doing
crowd control. The minute that I saw those unmarked officers on the
streets of the Nation's Capital, I knew how dangerous it was. I know
enough about the history of our own country to know that vigilante
justice, masked from identification, is reminiscent of some of the
worst moments in American history. I know that we should be students of
our own history to understand the danger to democracy presented by
unidentified, unaccountable agents of justice, but I also know, as a
student of the world today, that there are plenty of examples overseas
that should caution us as well.
Maybe there isn't a question in there, Senator Merkley, but I am just
so appreciative of your efforts, so appreciative that you have allowed
me and the legislation that I have offered with Senator Schumer to
require identification of Federal security forces to be added to the
bill that you are offering. I will be with you every step of the way,
if we are not successful in getting it included in the legislation
pending today, to make sure it finds a way into law. I think your
legislation is a cornerstone of our strategy to protect democracy for
the next 240 years.
Mr. MERKLEY. Would my colleague from Connecticut yield for a
question?
Mr. MURPHY. I would.
Mr. MERKLEY. For clarification, will my question be credited to my
colleague's time, and can I ask unanimous consent that that it be
credited to his time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). If the Senator for Connecticut
yields for a question, it comes off his time.
Mr. MURPHY. I would yield for a question, then.
Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you.
You made the point about lack of identification. I have here the
picture of how these have been deployed. I will make sure you can see
it as well.
Many are in camouflage--the generic police, with no sense of what
agency they are part of, no unique identifier, even as the head of
their organization--it was later clarified, and we found out, that they
were CBP, Customs and Border Protection.
He said: Of course, they have unique identifiers and, of course, they
are marked as Federal law enforcement--which they are not. But if one
of these individuals, in the course of attacking protesters, shoots
them with a rubber bullet that fractures their forehead and puts them
in critical condition in the hospital, would we have any idea how to
hold that officer accountable if they have no ID?
Mr. MURPHY. Thank you for the question.
This is what led me to join with many of my other colleagues, as I
mentioned, including Senator Schumer, to introduce the legislation in
the wake of the protests in our Nation's Capital.
Accountability is also a cornerstone of the rule of law. The only way
that we can aggrieve abuses of power is to know who committed those
abuses of power.
Listen, these troops or these riot officers were ordered to be in
that space. Let's be honest that the vast majority of these patriotic
law enforcement officers are trying to do the right thing. But we know,
because we have seen the video, that there have been repeated--
repeated--abuses on the streets of Portland, on the streets of New York
City, and on the streets of the Nation's Capital. When those occur,
frankly, it should be in the interest of law enforcement leadership
themselves to be able to hold those individuals accountable so that we
can make sure that the blame is not ascribed to every single individual
who is uniformed and on these streets, but that we hold the specific
individuals, or the individuals who ordered them to take those actions,
accountable.
So as a broad question, Americans should want to know what agency
these individuals are representing, and they should at least have a
badge number attached to them so that we can make sure that individual
actions have a line of accountability. But I would argue that the
agency themselves should want that if they are really in the business
of making sure that any abuses of power by their officers or by their
soldiers or by their police are held to account as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for
his intense effort to defend the civil rights of citizens--not only of
his State but all Americans--and for the truth he speaks that, when you
have anonymous officers in war gear attacking peaceful crowds and
committing, really, disturbing acts of violence against them, it is an
unacceptable thing in our democracy.
He has noted that there was this conversation about the triumph of
democracy as a strategy and it was going to spread and where we were
going to find ourselves by this time was a world ruled by ``we the
people'' governments across the land and how that is not the case.
He mentioned several countries that have been backsliding, and I
think we could add to that those places like Poland and Hungary. I
believe he mentioned Turkey.
It is tempting to be a strongman, and we have heard the President of
the United States convey his admiration for these strongmen across the
planet. But then he starts to bring their secret police, fascist
tactics to the streets of America, and we have an obligation--under our
oaths of office and simply as citizens of this Nation--to stand up and
say no.
I have been reading letters from women who were on the frontline down
in the peaceful protests, clarifying that there was no violence except
the violence of the Federal agents against them.
Here is another such letter:
I am a mom. I am a nurse. I live in Portland. I was
peacefully protesting police brutality and racism tonight
alongside other moms as part of the protests in downtown
Portland. I had my arms linked with my own mom and my close
friend when Federal agents in camo rushed us with guns
pointed. They paused for a split second (as if to consider if
they were really going to enact violence on a group of
unarmed moms) then they pushed people down to my left. We
were [chanting] ``don't hurt our kids.'' They threw flash-
bangs at our feet. They tear gassed the crowd.
I will not be silent. This is not ok. Don't just consume
the line that it is a bunch of anarchists the police and feds
are attacking. That is not ok. Black lives matter.
I have many more letters of people explaining what happened. They all
are basically the same: There were some kids doing some graffiti; there
was some pounding on the door of the Federal courthouse, but there was
no violence. The only violence came from the Feds attacking the
peaceful protesters.
I am going to reserve the balance of my time. I see my colleague is
here from the State of Utah.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I would inquire how much time I have
remaining, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes postcloture time
remaining.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I have been using this time to share
stories from women who have been down at the peaceful protests in
Portland and then as they relay that they are attacked even though
there is no violence in the protest. And they are attacked in an
incredibly violent way.
This is not, of course, the story the administration is telling the
world, the President is telling the world. He says: There is violence,
and we stopped it.
The truth is, it was a peaceful protest, and Trump's Federal agents,
dressed in war outfits, assaulted those protesters, as you heard in
letter after letter after letter.
It is almost like acts in a play. You have women holding flowers,
like this sunflower, and some had mums. They are dancing. They are
singing.
Act 2, the camouflaged secret police, Trump's secret police, come
onto the street--no agency identifier, no unique identifier--and then
they start assaulting the women. That is act 3, the assault.
These women are describing that assault in graphic terms. It is tear
gas. It is flashbang grenades. It is pepper spray. It is batons. It is
a woman a few feet away being hogtied. It is a woman a few feet away
being knocked to the ground. That is act 3.
And why is this happening? Because the President likes the
authoritarian, secret-police tactics of dictators around the world and
wants them to
[[Page S4445]]
bring them to the United States of America and is bringing them to the
United States of America.
Maybe the moment he is doing it--right now--is because he is running
campaign ads about what a good person he is to stop violence in
America.
Let's understand that the President of the United States is creating
violence in the streets so he can run campaign ads to say that he will
stop the violence. That is this play.
It feels like a Greek tragedy. It feels like something that would
never happen in America--but it is.
I have been relaying these letters that describe it in so much better
terms than anyone can. This letter is from Karen--or this Facebook post
is from Karen.
She says:
Mixed feelings this morning, waking up eyes still stinging
and a metallic taste in my mouth after ending the night of
nonviolent protest with the #WallofMoms being gassed, shot
at, and manhandled to the ground without provocation. Here's
what happened.
The majority of the night was a calm gathering spent
listening to speakers, chanting, singing, and marching.
Toward 11:30ish, folks gathered on the steps of the Justice
Center. I intentionally positioned at the front line with the
Moms to see for myself the truth.
There were definitely some idiot kids yelling stupid and
unproductive things, but mainly we gathered calmly, sweating
in the heat, holding signs and chanting in solidarity with
BlackLivesMatter. More experienced protesters told the Moms
without gas masks to get a few layers of people back since
they knew to expect CS gas again tonight. The only physical
actions taken before all hell broke loose is that some of the
protesters were banging and kicking loudly on the thick
plywood wall that had been constructed to block the entrance
to the Justice Center.
We waited and then suddenly some kind of bullets . . .
started shooting out of a small hole cut in the plywood, I
felt a few stings like small pebbles or sand, it didn't
really hurt but it scared me. Then some kind of smoky stuff
(tear gas in hindsight) was in the air. I already couldn't
see very well since my swim goggles had fogged up, but I
didn't feel any burning etc. Those without respirators
started leaving when they couldn't see or breathe. Huge
loud noises and explosions (?''flashbangs'') were going
off in front and behind us. Some of us linked arms and
stood together as there were (?where they came from) all
these big officers in black riot gear with batons starting
to push us off the steps of the Justice Center. We tried
to hold our ground but then one Mom a few down the row
from me was grabbed pulled back toward the group of
officers and they started to drag her away. She must have
said something inflammatory, but she was linked arms and
could not have hit them, thrown objects, or resisted
anything. We tried to pull her back to us for her safety
and then suddenly I was grabbed by 3-4 officers who were
shouting to each other to ``pull her down, get her on the
ground'' etc. (indeed they shoved and pulled me to the
ground, grabbing both arms and my backpack to do so).
Someone from the Moms said, ``let's go, they are
surrounding us, we can't do anything now.'' By then the
swim goggles had leaked and my eyes were burning and
tearing and I . . . couldn't see, and I just crouched on
the ground in a ball and put both hands up. Then--I heard
the officers asking if I was ok. Asking if I could stand
(I couldn't since I couldn't see). At least one of them
said ``I'm trying to help you.'' The crowd was yelling
``leave her alone'' and came from behind me and were
coaching me to keep my hands up and stay still. Sat there
awhile shaking, getting my bearings, and finally I asked
if I was being detained or if I could leave. Heard several
back and forth conversations between the officers about
``she resisted us'' and ``she tried to help her friend get
away.'' [And then someone else said] ``if she's willing to
leave, just let her go.'' I kind of scootched back on my
butt into the crowd and then some kind soul asked if he
could help me up and get away from the gas, took my arm
and we walked up the block back into the park. Some other
kind soul asked if we needed Maalox for our eyes (that
helped a little) and then we were out of the bitter cloud.
I felt sorry for the officers actually, who were only doing
what they were told by some pretty evil higher-ups (to
disperse nonviolent crowds by force), and as far as my
experience last night, actually seemed to try to do their
best not to truly hurt me (possibly because I am white,
female, and was wearing yellow to identify as a Mom).
I got away with some scraped knees and a sore hip, plus the
stinging eyes and metallic taste which will soon pass. But
also--worst--a heavy heart. It really is senseless out there.
I don't have answers and am no longer convinced that showing
up is helping anything. However, I am pretty sure if the Feds
hadn't been called in this would have continued to fade as
hopefully productive real change and progress were made
involving the city government and PD about the actual
issues--concern about police brutality and social inequities
for POC [people of color]--but now look at us.
We should look at these protesters who are calling for justice, for
policing that treats everyone equally, and it doesn't profile, doesn't
provide public safety protection to some and ignore others. It doesn't
view some citizens as the clients and other citizens as the threat. It
doesn't change their actions when they see a group with white skin
versus black skin or dark skin.
That conversation is being destroyed by the President of America. He
is trying to replace that argument for a better America that treats
people with respect and honors the civil rights of all with a different
America where secret police are deployed to beat the hell out of
peaceful protesters and then put up campaign ads to say that he will
fix it.
We cannot let this story go unanswered. At a minimum, collectively,
all 100 of us should say: No secret police--they wear identifiers for
agencies. They wear unique identifiers, and they don't go marching
through the streets of our city. They stay to protect the Federal
property they are charged to protect. They don't attack peaceful
protesters with flashbangs and tear gas and pepper spray and rubber
bullets and batons. We don't do that here in America.
I hope all 100 Senators will stand up and say: Yes, let's have a
debate on a very simple amendment that says yes to ID on uniforms--
there are no secret police--and yes to staying on your Federal property
or the near vicinity if that is your mission, so we don't have folks on
an unrestricted mission of sweeping through our streets, grabbing
people, and throwing them into vans as we have seen on the streets of
Portland.
I am asking that this Senate do its job to address this issue, to
hold a debate--long or short, as my colleagues would prefer--and vote.
It is important we raise our voice. It is important we vote. It is
important we have accountability. It is important that we defend the
Constitution of the United States and the citizens of the United
States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma
Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment Nos. 2127; 2180; 2305; 2308, as
modified; 2399; 2431; 2449; 2459; 2484, refile of 2421; 2486, refile of
2330; 1752; 1876; 2221; 2295; 2407; 2410; 2412; 2432; 2438; 2439; 2436;
2446, as modified; 2453; 2430; 2461, as modified; 2437; 2471; and 2429
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be called up en bloc and the Senate vote on adoption of the
amendments en bloc with no intervening action or debate.
Before I read the names, which I will do, I make that request: I ask
unanimous consent for the following amendments to be called up en bloc
and the Senate vote on adoption of the amendments en bloc with no
intervening action. I am going to list all of the amendments so there
is no misunderstanding.
The reason we are going to do this--we talked about this last night.
These have been hotlined. There are a total of about 28 amendments. I
will be naming in the Record those that I am asking the consent for:
Sullivan, No. 2127; Toomey, No. 2180; Rubio, No. 2305; Cruz, No. 2308,
as modified; Grassley, No. 2399; Fischer, No. 2431; Perdue, No. 2449;
Perdue, No. 2459; Tillis, No. 2484, refile of No. 2421; Portman, No.
2486, which is a refile of No. 2330; Peters, No. 1752; Cardin, No.
1876; Heinrich, No. 2221; Klobuchar, No. 2295; Udall, No. 2407;
Schumer, No. 2410; Booker, No. 2412; Duckworth, No. 2432; King, No.
2438; King, No. 2439; Grassley, No. 2436; Moran, No. 2446, as modified;
Cassidy, No. 2453; Crapo, No. 2430; Reed, No. 2461, as modified;
Klobuchar, No. 2437; Warner, No. 2471; and Bennet, No. 2429.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Oregon.
Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 2457
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, would my
colleague from Oklahoma modify the request to include unanimous consent
to call up amendment No. 2457, an amendment to limit Federal law
enforcement officers from operating in a secret fashion on the streets
of America without identification; that there be 2 hours for debate,
equally divided between opponents and proponents; 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. Does the Senator so modify his request?
[[Page S4446]]
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is an
issue that we have talked about for some time, and we have spent a
whole year on this bill. We have covered these issues before. I do
object to that modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
The Senator from Montana.
Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 2481
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am here
to speak about a very important issue facing our veterans in Montana.
In Montana, we are home to one of the largest veteran per capita
population in the Nation. It is an extraordinary privilege for me to
represent our veterans.
I am the son of a veteran, a marine. In the U.S. Senate, I represent
Montana's brave men and women who serve our country in uniform, and I
have had the opportunity to hear concerns from our veterans in all
corners of our State. That is why I am here today.
Last spring, the widow of a Montana veteran, Patricia Pardue, who
lives in Northwest Montana, approached me with a heartbreaking story.
Patricia saw nearly all of her pension benefits that her husband had
earned in service to our country stripped away by a scam artist.
This scam artist is also referred to as a pension poacher. This scam
artist was receiving Patricia's full VA pension, charging her for
services that would have been free at the VA.
Sadly, Patricia's story is not a rare occurrence. There are bad
actors across the country taking advantage of innocent Montanans like
Patricia, and they need to be stopped. After hearing her story, I
introduced a bipartisan bill to protect our veterans and their families
from these pension poachers.
My bill has the support of Senators across both sides of the aisle,
as well as the support of the Military Order of the Purple Heart of the
USA, the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers, the
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Association, and other military and
veterans associations.
This is a bipartisan bill. It punishes those who act illegally by
providing advice or representation to veterans without proper
accreditation from the VA. It is a shame we are even in this position
today, that there are people out there looking to take advantage of our
Nation's heroes.
Today, there are no legal consequences for these people--these
shameful and unpatriotic individuals who steal money from our Nation's
veterans. It is shameful. That is why I am fighting to include this
bipartisan bill as an amendment to the defense legislation, the NDAA,
before us today--to protect our servicemembers throughout their lives,
not just while in uniform but always.
Right now, we can take an important step to do everything in our
power to ensure veterans and their families keep their benefits, not
lose them to scammers. The longer we wait to fix this issue, the longer
we are failing our veterans and their financial well-being.
We can fix that right here, right now. That is why I am calling on my
colleagues today to adopt my amendment to the NDAA--to protect our
veterans, to protect the great men and women who have served in the
defense of our country.
I will stand by the Montana veterans, and I will continue fighting
this fight until we get this done. Therefore, I ask the Senator to
modify his request to include the Daines amendment, No. 2481.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Oklahoma so modify his
request?
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, this is a meritorious issue, obviously,
involving veterans. But at this late juncture, after the weeks we have
spent in deliberation both in the committee and then on the floor, it
is not yet--this particular amendment--ready so that there is no
opposition on my side. Since there is opposition, I would like to
inform the Senate and the chairman of that situation.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. Chairman, I would agree it is hard to find anything
with more merit than this. It is something I want to work very hard to
accomplish. However, we do have an agreement that this would violate.
For that reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
Mr. Chairman, I came to the floor earlier this week to implore my
colleagues to debate the administration's proposal to withdraw troops
from Germany and to vote on my amendment aimed at evaluating such a
move.
As I committed in my remarks at that time, I am objecting to the
managers' package on the basis that the Senate has not been afforded
the opportunity to have that debate.
The proposed removal of our troops from Germany is a matter of
extreme significance for our national security and our military
readiness. A decision of this magnitude should not occur without the
input of the U.S. Senate. The failure to debate such a consequential
matter is a disservice to this Chamber, to our Nation, and to our
allies.
My amendment seeks to evaluate such a withdrawal and affirm our
support for Germany, our support for our NATO allies, and our national
security interests, and it sends a strong message to our adversaries
like Russia. Therefore, I ask the Senator to modify his request to
include the Romney amendment No. 1885.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his amendment?
Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.
We have a President who has put this plan together. We spent a lot of
time on this. The Senate has been heard. We actually discussed this as
we put together our bill.
For that reason, I do object to the modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, every year, the Senate considers sweeping
legislation to authorize operations of the Department of Defense and
certain functions of the Department of Energy. The fiscal year 2021
National Defense Authorization Act provides a roadmap for spending for
national defense, spending which reflects over half of the annual
Federal budget. Its importance is enormous, and its consideration
important. Regrettably, the Senate in recent years has reduced
consideration of the NDAA to a perfunctory exercise occupying a couple
of weeks of debate, and little consideration of amendments. While I
support much of what is included in this authorizing package, I cannot
support its passage.
I am most concerned that the FY21 NDAA includes authorization for
testing of nuclear devices. Where our President fails to lead in global
diplomacy and common decency, he seems enthralled with an approach
favored by autocrats and dictators: demonstrations of military might
over strategic partnerships and alliances. I am concerned that, under
this administration, we are inexorably trending toward a new nuclear
arms race, where demonstrations of power have taken the place of
treaties that made the use of history's most dangerous weapons less
likely.
Coupled with authorization to build a new nuclear warhead, the
Senate's fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act goes
beyond the nuclear modernization plan set in action by the Obama
administration in concert with ratifying New START. Rather, it takes
scientifically dubious and strategically unnecessary steps to support
the President's seemingly exclusive interest in brandishing--
literally--our military might. Congress and Presidents of both parties
have worked for decades to help the world avoid repeating the
precarious situation of the 1960s; I worry we are starting a slow march
back to that edge.
Like many Senators, I am disappointed that a simple amendment I have
authored to provide resources through the Department of Defense to
communities who are the home to significant military missions through
our National Guard did not receive consideration. The men and women of
our National Guard are members of our communities. They are our mothers
and fathers, our husbands and wives, our coworkers and neighbors. The
important missions they serve help not only our
[[Page S4447]]
communities, but our national defense. The Department of Defense should
not only support the men and women who serve in uniform, but also the
communities in which they partner. This simple, straightforward
amendment would have provided $20 million for the Department of Defense
to support multiple communities where certain military missions that
serve the national defense are based. As communities across the country
support our military's missions, so, too, should our Department of
Defense serve their needs.
I am also disappointed that the Senate has rejected an amendment to
rein in the dramatically escalating budget of the Department of
Defense. As the vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I
have worked with the Republican leadership and with Chairman Shelby in
recent years to strike budget agreements that have resulted in parity
between defense and nondefense spending. At the same time, amid a
national and international public health crisis, the time has never
been more critical to infuse more resources in public health,
education, and business development programs. The Sanders amendment
would have maintained full support for the personnel needs of the
Department, as well as the critical medical research supported through
the Department of Defense. It would, however, have also taken some of
the Department's sweeping budget and reserved it for underfunded
domestic needs. This is long overdue.
The Senate will pass this bill today, and we will need to reconcile
differences with the House. While I will not vote for the Senate bill
as it currently stands, there are many provisions that merit support.
The bill continues a streak in recent years of improving support for
the health and safety of military servicemembers and their families
and, this year, also authorizes $44 million for vaccine and biotech
research support for COVID-19 response that benefits everyone. The bill
includes limitations on the use of the military against protestors,
following the administration's actions against protestors in the
Nation's Capitol, and the photo-op that followed. It includes a
provision to begin the process for renaming U.S. military facilities
named after Confederate generals. Our bases today should reflect the
foundational belief that we are all created equal, not glorify those
who sought to perpetuate slavery and destroy the Union.
I am also very pleased that a project I have worked on many years to
heal the wounds of the Vietnam war has been advanced. Over the last 2
years, we have included an authorization and the Appropriations
Committee has funded a project to remediate dioxin contamination at the
Bien Hoa Airbase. This year, we also include an authorization for a
partnership with the Vietnamese Government for recovering remains of
missing in action in Vietnam. For more than 40 years, the Vietnamese
Government has provided indispensable assistance in locating the
remains of more than 700 U.S. MIAs. This provision will enable the
Department of Defense to reciprocate by providing archival data and
other assistance to Vietnam. I want to thank Senators Hirono and Kaine
for their help in sponsoring this amendment in committee and Chairman
Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed for accepting it.
I hope that an agreed upon fiscal year 2021 National Defense
Authorization Act will address these concerns. While I cannot vote to
pass this bill today, I hope to be able to support a conference
agreement that supports our men and women in uniform and their
families, meets the defense needs of our Nation, and reflects the
values that have made American the beacon of hope for generations.
Mr. INHOFE. We are at the point now where I would like to make a few
comments, and I would like to ask our ranking member to make some
comments. This has been a long time in the making.
I have said several times on the floor that this, in my opinion, is
the most important bill of the year. It is something we have done every
year. This will be the 60th consecutive year that we have actually done
this bill.
It is never easy. One reason it is not easy is because everybody
knows it is going to pass, so people want to be a part of it and put
their many amendments that aren't even germane on this bill. We are now
to the point where, in just a few minutes, we are going to be voting on
the final passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2021.
When Senator Reed and I introduced this bill, we thought we had a
good bill. The bill was really led by the Members. This never happened
before. We started off with over 700 requests and amendments so that
the Members themselves have drawn this bill together. It is not as if
it is put together by a committee; it was put together by all of us
here in the Chamber. The committee approved it 25 to 2. That is
overwhelming. I think everyone understands that.
We filed it with the hopes of adding a few more amendments on the
Senate floor. We did that. We added more than 140 amendments
altogether. We even had some debates and rollcall votes on amendments,
something we haven't done probably in the last 5 years or so.
Now we are voting on a great bill, a bill that every Senator had the
chance to make his or her remark on. Once the Senate passes this bill,
we will still have more work to do. We still have to go over to the
House and pass their bill. We have to go to conference with the House.
We will do that. We have done that every year for many, many years. Our
next step would be, of course, to do the conference.
Then we will work to make sure, once again, this is a bipartisan
conference report that both parties can support and the President can
sign.
It has been bipartisan. All these amendments--each group amendment
that the ranking member, Senator Reed, yesterday talked about--were
equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. I have not seen it
this way in the past. We will make sure, once again, that we have the
same bipartisan effort.
I have said it many times over the past several days and several
weeks that the NDAA is one of our most important responsibilities.
There is a document I refer to now and then that nobody reads anymore
called the Constitution. In that Constitution, it tells us what we are
supposed to be doing here. What we are supposed to be doing here is
exactly what we are doing today.
The National Defense Authorization Act is how we fulfill that
responsibility, and we have done this every year for 60 years in a row
now. It is a sacred responsibility we all have to all Americans,
especially our troops and their families--those in harm's way. Every
day they wake up, lay their lives on the line to defend our Nation and
our values and freedom, democracy, and peace.
Right now, the main challenge to our security comes from
authoritarian regimes that stand against all of our values. I am
talking about China and Russia and others--primarily China and Russia.
The way we win against our adversaries is by making sure our fights
never start by sending a strong message that ``you can't win; don't
even try.'' That is what we are doing with this bill.
The National Defense Strategy Commission report is significant
because this is the second time now we have done this. This is a book
that was put together by six leading Democrats, six leading
Republicans--all very knowledgeable on this issue. It is called the
``Common Defense.'' This is what we have used as our blueprint. We
stayed pure with that all the way through.
The NDAA makes sure that we have the personnel, the equipment, the
training, and the organization needed to support the strategy that is
found in this book. If we get it right, we will be set on a steady
course toward a peaceful, free, and prosperous world--not just for us
but for our children and our grandchildren as well. Kay and I have been
married for 60 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. We know something
about this and the significance of this.
The backbone of all of this is our men and women in uniform, so this
bill is for them. The bill provides for a 3-percent pay raise, the
largest one in over a decade. It also takes care of the families and
makes sure their spouses have employment opportunities, children have
access to good schools and childcare, and they are all living with a
quality roof over their heads.
[[Page S4448]]
These are priorities that go beyond party. That is why this bill has
passed for the last 59 years in a row with bipartisan support, and that
is why we are going to do it again today.
There is talk out there that people in Washington don't really work
that hard. Let me assure you, they do in this case. We have been
blessed with a couple of leaders, this great committee we have that put
this together. Those leaders include John Bonsell. John Bonsell has
been working in this effort with me for well over 20 years, and he was
a great leader of this group. On the Democratic side, the minority
side, Liz King has worked hand in hand with John Bonsell. The whole
team has worked together.
Developing a bill that comes out of committee with only two
dissenting votes is not something that is done every day. I want to
personally thank those individuals on our side, and we will ask Senator
Reed to do the same on the minority side.
We want to thank not just John Bonsell but John Wason, Tom Goffus,
Stephanie Barna, Greg Lilly, Marta Hernandez, Rick Berger, Jennie
Wright, Adam Barker, Augusta BinnsBerkey, Al Edwards, Sean O'Keefe,
Brad Patout, Jason Potter, Katie Sutton, Eric Trager, Dustin Walker,
T.C. Williams, Otis Winkler, Gwyneth Woolwine, Katie Magnus, Arthur
Tellis, Leah Brewer, Debbie Chiarello, Gary Howard, Tyler Wilkinson,
John Bryant, Griffin Cannon, Keri-Lyn Michalke, Soleil Sykes, Brittany
Amador, Jillian Schofield.
We will cover those from the minority side in just a moment.
From my personal office: Luke Holland, Andrew Forbes, Leacy Burke,
Don Archer, Travis Tarbox--who just got his promotion to major
yesterday--Brian Brody, Dan Hillenbrand, Jake Hinch, Devin Barrett,
Laurie Fitch, and Whitney Fulluo.
Lastly, from the floor staff: Robert Duncan, Chris Tuck, Megan
Mercer, Tony Hanagan, Katherine Foster, Brian Canfield, Abigail Baker,
Anna Carmack, and Maddie Sanborn.
It is because of the tireless work of all these fine people--we are
talking about the members of the committee, the personal staff, and we
are talking about the staff in the cloakrooms--I want to thank them
all. This is our only opportunity to do that.
We are going to hear now from the ranking member, Senator Reed, and
then, after that, we will vote and look forward to this year's NDAA
passing with a strong bipartisan majority.
Senator Reed
Mr. REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. President, I rise, once again, to express my support for the
National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2021. I want to
commend the chairman for his leadership and his thoughtfulness
throughout this whole process.
I am pleased, as we all are, that we will be voting soon on passage.
I believe this is an excellent bill. I believe it provides the men and
women of our military with resources and the authorizations needed to
defend our Nation, while at the same time taking care of their
families. It was crafted after a series of thoughtful hearings,
discussion, and debate on both sides of the aisle. It was passed out of
committee with strong bipartisan support.
Most importantly, I am very pleased that this bill has had such full
consideration on the Senate floor. For the first time in a long time,
we were able to come to an agreement to debate and vote on several
amendments. In addition, we were able to adopt over 140 amendments from
Members on both sides of the aisle.
I want to, again, thank Senator Inhofe for his leadership getting the
Defense authorization bill to this point, overcoming the many
challenges posed by the pandemic and by other factors that made this a
very unusual year. I look forward to working with him as we go into
conference.
Finally, I would like to thank the committee staff who have worked so
hard. I specifically want to recognize, as the chairman has, the staff
director, John Bonsell, for the Republicans and the staff director for
the Democrats, Elizabeth King. They worked together. They are diligent.
They are bipartisan. They are thoughtful. They are the best examples of
a staff member of the U.S. Senate.
I would also like to thank my staff on the Democratic side: Jody
Bennett, Carolyn Chuhta, Jon Clark, Jonathan Epstein, Jorie Feldman,
Creighton Greene, Ozge Guzelsu, Gary Leeling, Kirk McConnell, Maggie
McNamara Cooper, Bill Monahan, Mike Noblet, John Quirk, Arun Seraphin,
Fiona Tomlin, and, once again, staff director Elizabeth King.
Also, let me thank the floor staff and the leadership staff. You have
been part of this process for the last several weeks, and you have done
a remarkable job. We thank you for that very, very much. You
facilitated our efforts.
Finally, I would urge all of my colleagues to vote for this very
excellent bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know of no further debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the title of the bill for
the third time.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 14, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 140 Leg.]
YEAS--86
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Loeffler
Manchin
McConnell
McSally
Menendez
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Young
NAYS--14
Booker
Braun
Brown
Gillibrand
Harris
Kennedy
Leahy
Lee
Markey
Merkley
Paul
Sanders
Warren
Wyden
The bill (S. 4049), as amended, was passed.
(The bill, as amended, will be printed in a future edition
of the Record.)
____________________