[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.)

                          ____________________