[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 135 (Thursday, July 30, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4617-S4622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  UIGHUR INTERVENTION AND GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN UNIFIED RESPONSE ACT OF 
                        2019--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the 
Senate the message to accompany S. 178, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), 
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), and the Senator from Alabama 
(Mr. Shelby).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), 
the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), the Senator from Montana (Mr. 
Tester), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 153 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer

[[Page S4618]]


     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     McConnell
     McSally
     Murkowski
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--42

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Booker
     Burr
     Harris
     Markey
     Menendez
     Moran
     Perdue
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Tester
     Whitehouse
  The motion was agreed to.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 178) entitled 
     ``An Act to condemn gross human rights violations of ethnic 
     Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang, and calling for an end to 
     arbitrary detention, torture, and harassment of these 
     communities inside and outside China.'', do pass, with an 
     amendment.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                Motion to Concur with Amendment No. 2499

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment 
with a further amendment, No. 2499.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] moves to concur 
     in the House amendment to the bill, with an amendment 
     numbered 2499.

  The amendment is as follows

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

        In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Coronavirus Relief Fair 
     Unemployment Compensation Act of 2020''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE FEDERAL PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT 
                   COMPENSATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension.--Section 2104(e)(2) of the Relief for 
     Workers Affected by Coronavirus Act (contained in subtitle A 
     of title II of division A of the CARES Act (Public Law 116-
     136)) is amended by striking ``July 31, 2020'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2020''.
       (b) Improvements to Accuracy of Payments.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2104(b) of the Relief for Workers 
     Affected by Coronavirus Act (contained in subtitle A of title 
     II of division A of the CARES Act (Public Law 116-136)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``of $600'' and 
     inserting ``equal to the amount specified in paragraph (3)''; 
     and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Amount of federal pandemic unemployment 
     compensation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The amount specified in this paragraph 
     is the following amount with respect to an individual:
       ``(i) For weeks of unemployment beginning after the date on 
     which an agreement is entered into under this section and 
     ending on or before July 31, 2020, $600.
       ``(ii) For weeks of unemployment beginning after the last 
     week under clause (i) and ending before December 31, 2020, an 
     amount equal to one of the following, as determined by the 
     State for all individuals:

       ``(I) $200.
       ``(II) An amount (not to exceed $500) equal to--

       ``(aa) two-thirds of the individual's average weekly wages; 
     minus
       ``(bb) the individual's base amount (determined prior to 
     any reductions or offsets).
       ``(B) Base amount.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     term `base amount' means, with respect to an individual, an 
     amount equal to--
       ``(i) for weeks of unemployment under the pandemic 
     unemployment assistance program under section 2102, the 
     amount determined under subsection (d)(1)(A)(i) or (d)(2) of 
     such section 2102, as applicable; or
       ``(ii) for all other weeks of unemployment, the amount 
     determined under paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection.
       ``(C) Average weekly wages.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), for purposes of 
     this paragraph, the term `average weekly wages' means, with 
     respect to an individual, the following:

       ``(I) If the State computes the individual weekly 
     unemployment compensation benefit amount based on an 
     individual's average weekly wages in a base period, an amount 
     equal to the individual's average weekly wages used in such 
     computation.
       ``(II) If the State computes the individual weekly 
     unemployment compensation benefit amount based on high 
     quarter wages or a formula using wages across some but not 
     all quarters in a base period, an amount equal to \1/13\ of 
     such high quarter wages or average wages of the applicable 
     quarters used in the computation for the individual.
       ``(III) If the State uses computations other than the 
     computations under subclause (I) or (II) for the individual 
     weekly unemployment compensation benefit amount, or for 
     computations of the weekly benefit amount under the pandemic 
     unemployment assistance program under section 2102, as 
     described in subsection (d)(1)(A)(i) or (d)(2) of such 
     section 2102, for which subclause (I) or (II) do not apply, 
     an amount equal to \1/52\ of the sum of all base period 
     wages.

       ``(ii) Special rule.--If more than one of the methods of 
     computation under subclauses (I), (II), and (III) of clause 
     (i) are applicable to a State, then such term shall mean the 
     amount determined under the applicable subclause of clause 
     (i) that results in the highest amount of average weekly 
     wages.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Pandemic unemployment assistance.--Section 2102(d) of 
     the Relief for Workers Affected by Coronavirus Act (contained 
     in subtitle A of title II of division A of the CARES Act 
     (Public Law 116-136)) is amended by inserting ``with respect 
     to the individual'' after ``section 2104'' in each of 
     paragraphs (1)(A)(ii) and (2).
       (B) Pandemic emergency unemployment compensation.--Section 
     2107 of the Relief for Workers Affected by Coronavirus Act 
     (contained in subtitle A of title II of division A of the 
     CARES Act (Public Law 116-136)) is amended--
       (i) in subsection (a)(4)(A)(ii), by inserting ``with 
     respect to the individual'' after ``section 2104''; and
       (ii) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting ``with respect to 
     the individual'' after ``section 2104''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Relief for Workers Affected by Coronavirus Act (contained in 
     subtitle A of title II of division A of the CARES Act (Public 
     Law 116-136)).
       (d) Emergency Designation.--
       (1) In general.--The amounts provided by this section and 
     the amendments made by this section are designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the 
     Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(g)).
       (2) Designation in senate.--In the Senate, this section and 
     the amendments made by this section are designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 4112(a) of H. Con. 
     Res. 71 (115th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2018.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Ms. McSALLY. Mr. President, I deployed to Washington to be a 
pragmatic problem-solver, and for the past 5\1/2\ years I have made it 
my mission in Congress to better the lives of hard-working Arizonans. 
In a time of toxic partisanship, this is no easy feat. It requires me 
to go across the aisle to find where the Venn diagram overlaps.
  Well, today I am calling on my Senate colleagues to be pragmatic, to 
meet in the middle on what we should agree on. I am asking Senators to 
simply extend expanded unemployment benefits for 7 days while Congress 
comes up with a solution. Who could be against that?
  With the 1st of August approaching, Americans out of work are 
counting on us for cash so they can pay their rent and put food on the 
table for their families. While some States will get the expanded 
checks, we understand, for the next week or two, Arizonans have gotten 
their last expanded check. These Arizonans are in my neighborhood, live 
on my street, and worked paycheck to paycheck before this once-in-a-
century pandemic hit.
  Well, I am here to tell them that Washington, DC's dysfunction and 
bickering is alive and well. Congress, once again, is using hard-
working Americans as pawns in their political games.
  For the many Arizonans out of work right now, this is not a game. 
Americans, Arizonans are calling out for help, and it is time we 
deliver it.
  What I am offering today is a simple 7-day extension of the extra 
$600 a week for unemployed Americans while we work through our 
differences on how to move forward and see Americans through this 
first-in-a-century crisis. This is a reasonable proposal. Who could 
possibly be against this?
  I understand, as we work to defeat this virus--which we will--and 
support the economic recovery for our country, we need to incentivize 
people to return to work safely, when they are able. And there are 
disagreements in this

[[Page S4619]]

Chamber on what that looks like, what the ultimate dollar figure or 
percentage will be, where we land and for how long.
  I know today Congress needs to do their job and to prevent this 
desperately needed, extra lifeline from fully expiring. In this 
uncertain time, everyone is doing the best they can to make ends meet, 
to help each other, to help our neighbors, to stay safe--everyone, that 
is, except Congress.
  Americans who have lost their livelihoods through no fault of their 
own due to this cruel virus should not be the collateral damage of 
political maneuvering. I am calling on the Senate: Let's do what we 
were sent here to do. Let's do our job.
  In the face of the virus, we have asked millions of Americans to go 
back to work when they can safely, to make hard decisions, to do what 
they were hired to do. It is time for the Senate to do the same.
  This is a reasonable request. It is simply a 7-day extension of the 
expanded unemployment benefits while we continue to work out our 
differences. Who could possibly be against this?
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of my bill at the desk. I further ask that the 
bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this UC request is clearly a stunt. A 1-
week fix can't be implemented in time, and the Senator knows that. 
Plus, there are many other problems Arizonans have in addition to this 
one.
  Arizonan parents are worried that schools will not open safely. 
Arizona renters are worried they will be evicted from their apartments. 
Arizona parents are worried that they can't feed their kids. Arizona 
small businesses are worried that they will not have the necessary 
help.
  All of those things are in the Heroes Act, plus not even a 1-week 
extension--which can't even be implemented--but an extension until 
January 31.
  So I would ask my colleague to tell Arizonans whether she supports 
the Heroes Act or not, which goes much further and is much stronger on 
unemployment and many other issues.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Ms. McSALLY. Mr. President, this is disappointing and a political 
stunt and a game. For all the normal people watching out there who 
don't understand why Washington is so dysfunctional, we are just 
looking for a 7-day extension so they can get another check and pay 
their rent.
  I asked the question: Who could possibly be against this?
  Well, we found out. It is the Senator from New York. So you can clip 
the tape or put his picture on your refrigerator when you open it up 
because it is the minority leader who is against this, on his path to 
try and become the majority leader. And that is unfortunate. Arizonans 
deserve better.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 6800

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am going to ask once again that our 
Republican colleagues support the Heroes Act.
  This is a dramatic crisis affecting all of America in many different 
ways. We Democrats have come up with a bold, strong plan supported by 
the vast majority of people--average, middle-class people. Our proposal 
deals with the issue of unemployment all the way through January 31--
not a 1-week stunt which can't even be adapted in time.
  Our proposal deals with schools and their ability to open. Our 
proposal deals with small businesses. Our proposal deals with so many 
of the issues facing America.
  Our colleagues on the other side, we know, are tied in a knot. Our 
colleagues on the other side can't come to an agreement on anything. 
They did an empty shell bill because the only thing they could support 
was an empty shell bill with nothing inside of it.
  Well, that is not what the American people want. They want action. I 
would urge the Republican leader to start negotiating in good faith and 
in seriousness. I would urge the President to do things about testing 
and tracing, also in the Heroes bill.
  I would urge that we rise to the occasion of this enormous crisis. We 
Democrats are doing that in a bold and strong way. We haven't heard 
anything from our Republican colleagues.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of calendar No. 455, H.R. 6800, the Heroes Act; that the 
bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, we have already had this debate once 
today when the Democratic leader chose to offer this motion knowing 
that, of course, it is not serious. What he is talking about here, just 
after having rejected a very commonsense proposal, which is a 1-week 
extension for the unemployment insurance--by the way, at $600, which is 
exactly what the Democrats say they want. They want to keep it at $600 
even though, as we know from numerous studies, that means that, for 
many people--in fact, for 68 percent of the people on unemployment 
insurance, based on the University of Chicago study--they are making 
more on unemployment insurance than they can make at work.
  I think all of us here in this Chamber want to be sure that folks are 
taken care of. In fact, we just voted on legislation to provide the 
ability to be able to debate this very issue and other issues. But to 
say that people should be making substantially more for not working 
rather than working is something I think even a lot of my Democratic 
colleagues do not find acceptable.
  Instead, the minority leader, once again, is offering the Heroes Act, 
as he has done before. You will recall this is the House-passed 
legislation that was passed, actually, a while ago during different 
times. But it is $3.5 trillion. That is what the CBO says--$3.5 
trillion.
  That makes it, of course, the most expensive piece of legislation 
ever passed by either body anytime in our history, by far. By the way, 
it has a number of provisions that have nothing to do with COVID-19.
  So here we are in the middle of this crisis. In many places it is 
getting worse, not better. We do need to act, but we need to be sure we 
are acting in an effective, targeted way and not putting things out 
there--a $3.5 trillion bill including many things that have nothing to 
do with COVID-19.
  It has immigration policy changes there. We can debate those 
separately. Immigration policy issues are very contentious and are 
tough things for us to resolve in any context, but certainly we 
shouldn't put it in a COVID-19 bill.
  It has unprecedented mandates on the States that say to the States: 
You have to do the elections the way Congress wants to do them. You 
have to do mail-in ballots the way we are saying you have to do them. 
You have to use the kinds of ideas that we say you have to use.
  This has always been in the province of the States. Again, a lot of 
my Democratic colleagues agree it should continue to be in the province 
of the States to make those kinds of detailed decisions on elections.
  It doubles the amount of money in the Heroes Act that goes to States 
as compared to even what the National Governors Association is asking 
for. Three and a half trillion dollars begins to add up when you do 
things like that. You give twice as much to the States as the States 
are even asking for.
  Of course, one of my favorites--and I know, again, the Senator from 
New York feels strongly about this from a tax policy point of view--
included in the COVID-19 bill is a very expensive change in tax policy 
that actually is a huge tax break for wealthy individuals; that is, 
repealing the SALT changes that were made. Over 50 percent of the 
benefit of this goes to the top 1 percent. That is based on the Tax 
Policy Center.

[[Page S4620]]

  Based on our own Joint Committee on Taxation, which is a nonpartisan 
group here in Congress, what they are trying to get through in their 
legislation, the Heroes Act--40 percent of that benefit or more, 
according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, goes to those with income 
over $1 million. What is that doing in the COVID-19 bill?
  The Democratic leader talked about the need for more money for 
testing. I couldn't agree with him more. By the way, the proposal that 
was presented by Senator McConnell earlier this week has a lot more 
money for testing. It also has more money for antiviral medications, 
for vaccines, and for ensuring that workplaces can be safe. It has the 
same amount of money--maybe even a little bit more; the Senator from 
Tennessee can tell us--for our schools, to be able to reopen our 
schools safely.
  There is a lot of common ground here. I think we can find it. I 
really do. I know that today has not been an example of that. We are 
even rejecting here--a moment ago--a 7-day simple extension of 600 
bucks per week.
  But when I look at it, I see the school money as being identical, and 
I see the tax provisions that we have to help encourage people to go 
back to work and encourage companies and nonprofits to put measures in 
place to make the workplace safe, like plexiglass shields or more hand 
sanitizers or PPE. These are all things we can agree on.
  Even on the issue of unemployment insurance--and I have talked to 
many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle about this--I think 
there is a way we can get there. I think Democrats realize that $600 
per week does create this disincentive because it is, on average, 134 
percent of what people were making in the private sector. We can come 
up with a way to deal with that. One is a return-to-work bonus, which 
is an idea that has a lot of bipartisan appeal.
  Let's put aside these games. Let's put aside these extreme positions. 
Let's figure out how we can come together. This evening was not a good 
example of that, having rejected the 7-day extension of $600 per week 
of unemployment insurance, but I think now we have this opportunity, 
with the legislation that was passed earlier today, to begin to have 
that debate. We can have the debate on unemployment insurance. We can 
have it on a whole range of issues--how we deal with schools, how we 
deal with the healthcare crisis we have, the underlying crisis. We can 
deal with all these issues in a way that enables us to find common 
ground, to create real solutions for the people we represent as we face 
this unprecedented pandemic.
  With that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, two quick points. One, my friend from 
Ohio--and I know he has lots of good ideas and a great deal of 
sincerity--made my point. The vast majority of Republicans oppose $600 
for any time. That is why they are not calling it up for a vote--it 
shows what a stunt the Senator from Arizona has done.
  Second, I think all the points my colleague made about things that 
are extraneous--they are not; they are related to COVID. But one thing 
not in our bill--$1.7 billion so the President's hotel doesn't get 
competition. That is an extraneous thing. It is not in our bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask through the Chair, does the 
Senator from Ohio wish to speak further?
  Mr. PORTMAN. No
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thought the Senator from Arizona made 
a very commonsense proposal. We are in a position here in the Congress 
that we often find ourselves in: We have different opinions--
dramatically different opinions in some cases. What she said was, while 
we are working those things out, let's extend the $600 unemployment 
benefit for 7 days so people aren't hurt. That is a commonsense 
proposal. I regret that wasn't adopted.
  I like what the Senator from Ohio said. Instead of starting--when you 
have a disagreement over several items, my experience is that you don't 
start with the things that you disagree on the most; you start with the 
things you agree on the most.
  There are a number of things in the House-passed bill and in the 
Senate Republican bill that was introduced on Monday, which the 
President supports--let me repeat that. The House of Representatives 
passed a bill. They have a Democratic majority. The Senate has a 
Republican majority, and we have a Republican President. We have a 
Republican President and a Republican bill, and we have a House-passed 
bill, and it is time to see if we can put the two together. That is why 
we have two bodies. But that requires Senators and Members of the House 
who are willing to sit down and come to some compromise or some 
resolution of the issues.
  There are some things about which we have big differences. One is the 
dollar figure. As the Senator from Ohio said, we have already spent 
$3.5 trillion. That is a number so big, most of us couldn't even speak 
it before we got to this era of the sneaky, dangerous COVID virus.
  Let's look at the other side. On what might we agree or many of us 
agree? We don't have 100 percent on either side who are going to agree 
on most anything.
  We might start with schools. Schools are starting up in the southern 
part of the United States, where the Presiding Officer is from--
Florida--and I am from Tennessee. Schools are getting ready to go back, 
and so are colleges. That means there are 70 million students who would 
like to go back to school or college--100,000 public schools, 35,000 
private schools, and 6,000 colleges.
  What help do they need? They need help reopening safely so that they 
can go back with students physically present as consistent with safety 
as is possible.
  I talked with the Governor of Tennessee, Bill Lee, yesterday. He said 
93 of the 95 counties in Tennessee had schools that were going to 
reopen in person. Maybe not every student, maybe not every class, but 
in 93 of the 95 counties, the Governor said they know that children 
need to be in school and their parents need for them to be in school. 
Two-thirds of married parents work outside the home.
  This is a bill for the children, though. I mean, every teacher, every 
pediatrician, and almost every parent knows that, especially with young 
children, if they are left out of school for such a lengthy period of 
time, it damages them; it hurts them. There is a health risk in going 
back, yes--not very much for young children--but there is a bigger 
emotional, intellectual, and physical risk if they stay out of school.
  What have we proposed to do? We proposed to help pay for the schools 
to open safely and to help pay for the colleges to open safely, which 
most are doing.
  The Chronicle of Higher Education said yesterday that 50 percent of 
our colleges plan to open this fall with students physically present. 
Thirty-five percent have a mix, with students physically present and 
online instruction. That means only 13 percent will be all virtual--at 
least that is their plan.
  If we could agree on that, why shouldn't we help them? Well, we can 
agree on it because the House of Representatives bill and the Senate 
Republican bill have almost exactly the same amount of money in them--
about $1,250 for K-12 schools--that is a lot of money per student; 
$1,250 per student--and about $1,500 per student for colleges to help 
them open safely. We could agree on that.
  I think we can agree on childcare. We ought to be talking about back 
to school, back to childcare, back to work. It is hard to go back to 
work if you don't have childcare. There are provisions in the House 
bill and the Republican bill that aren't so different.
  Testing. We all believe, I think, that we need maximum advance on 
testing, especially point-of-care testing--quick, reliable tests. There 
is money in the Republican bill and in the Democratic bill to advance 
that effort.
  Then there are the small business loans, called PPP. That probably 
was the most successful part of the early CARES bill, but a bipartisan 
group of Senators has worked on getting rid of some of the problems 
with it and come up with a proposal to extend that.

[[Page S4621]]

  Those are several major points of which we agree. And I think the 
Senator from Arizona's suggestion that we pass the unemployment benefit 
for another week while we work together to get an agreement was a 
commonsense one.
  (The remarks of Mr. Alexander pertaining to the introduction of S. 
4375 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                             Supreme Court

  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I came to this floor 3 weeks ago to talk 
about the U.S. Supreme Court. I come today to revise and extend my 
remarks.
  There are now five Republican-appointed Justices on the Court. 
Actually, Republicans have appointed 11 out of the last 15 Justices to 
the bench, but is this the conservative Court we have worked for? More 
to the point, is this a constitutionalist Court?
  The only thing I can say for certain when looking at the results of 
this last term, that in the words of the late Justice Scalia: ``The 
Imperial Judiciary lives.''
  This is a Court that freely rewrites congressional statutes, that has 
protected the worst leftwing Presidents of earlier years, that in the 
final week of its term, gave away half of the State of Oklahoma.
  For those who consider themselves constitutional conservatives, these 
decisions are a clarion call to wake up and to acknowledge what is 
staring us in the face: Judicial imperialism is alive and well. It is 
marching on undaunted.
  For religious conservatives, these decisions are a call to action. 
Now is the time for us to be heard, and we can begin with what we 
expect of our nominees to the High Court, what we expect them to 
understand, what we expect them to affirm.
  That brings me to the case that propelled religious conservatives 
into activism and politics in a new way over four decades ago--the case 
that, for religious conservatives, made the Supreme Court the great 
issue of the day: Roe v. Wade. I know that when it comes to the Supreme 
Court, we are not supposed to talk about Roe. That is the open secret 
on the right. It is certainly what religious conservatives have been 
told for years: Don't mess up the Supreme Court nomination process by 
raising Roe. It is imprudent. It is in poor taste. It will divide our 
coalition.
  No, we are supposed to stick to talking about process, about methods, 
maybe throw in some talk about umpires, but do not talk about Roe.
  Well, the truth is, Roe is the reason we have a legal conservative 
movement to begin with. Roe is what propelled generations of religious 
conservatives to vote for Republican Presidents and Republican Senators 
and Republican politicians of every rank and station--all on the 
promise to reverse this travesty of a decision, this moral and social 
injustice that in 47 years has taken the lives of 61 million unborn--61 
million.
  Republicans have said: Vote for us. Vote for us, and we will undo 
this wrong. We will return this issue to the people. Yet all these 
years later--11 Republican-appointed Justices later--here we are. The 
Nation is apparently no closer to the day when the Supreme Court will 
renounce this outrage, renounce its imperial pretensions, and allow the 
good and decent people of this Nation to debate and decide this matter 
for ourselves.
  So I say to my Republican colleagues: How long must this go on? How 
many more elections must there be? How many more promises must be made? 
How many more Justices must be appointed before we will expect of our 
nominees what the voters already expect of us? How long before we ask 
our nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States to recognize Roe 
as the outrage that it is?
  Let's just be frank. Roe is an illegitimate decision. It has no basis 
in the Constitution--none. It has no basis in the law. None of the 
Constitution's specific and enumerated guarantees of privacy even begin 
to legitimize the taking of innocent human life; none are remotely on 
point.
  Even liberal scholars recognize this. Whole books are written about 
what Roe v. Wade should have said. Roe marks the point at which the 
modern Supreme Court decided that they would just impose their own 
views--their own social and moral and legal views--on the Nation, 
despite what the people want, despite what the Constitution says, no 
matter how the laws are written.
  In the words of the late constitutional scholar, John Hart Ely--who 
was, I would point out, a political liberal--``Roe is not 
constitutional law and it gives almost no sense of an obligation to try 
to be.''
  Roe is the very essence of judicial imperialism. It is a brazen power 
grab by unelected Justices imposing their moral and social views on the 
Nation, just like another group of Justices did in a case called Plessy 
v. Ferguson, just like another group of Justices did before that in a 
case called Dred Scott.
  Yes, I do mean to compare Roe to those earlier cases because Dred 
Scott and Plessy and Roe belong together. They are the worst 
miscarriages of justice in our history--the worst judicial opinions of 
all time. Dred Scott and Plessy and Roe are abusive, morally repugnant 
decisions that wounded the soul of this Nation. They dishonored this 
Nation's fundamental face in the dignity and worth of every person.
  For these reasons, Roe is no secondary issue, something to be pushed 
to the side in the nomination process. Roe is central. Roe is a window 
into the constitutional world view of a would-be Justice. It is a 
measure of their sense of what a Justice should be. Because if you 
believe that Roe was rightly decided, then there just is no two ways 
about it, you are a judicial imperialist. If you believe Roe was 
rightly decided, you believe that unelected judges should have the 
power to enact their social views, to promote their own social agenda, 
regardless of what the Constitution says or what we the people have 
expressed preference for, voted for, and enacted into law.
  I would just add that it seems to be the case, inevitably, that when 
Justices enact their views, they enact the views of a certain social 
class. Oh, yes. The highly educated, managerial front row of American 
society, the class of the faculty lounge and the C-suite, that is what 
you get when judges govern America. That is not what the Constitution 
calls for. That is not what the Constitution specifies. The 
Constitution says that sovereignty rests with ``We the People''; that 
it should be the people who are in charge. It is what the American 
people want and have written in their fundamental law and in their 
statutes that should carry the day.
  The people have a right to run their own government. They have a 
right to expect their views to prevail, to have their Constitution be 
obeyed, and to expect that the Justices appointed to their Supreme 
Court will abide by the Constitution's terms as we the people wrote 
them.
  That is why I say today: I will vote only for those Supreme Court 
nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade was wrongly 
decided the day it was decided. I say again: I will vote for those 
nominees only and for those nominees alone. When I say ``explicitly 
acknowledge,'' I mean on the record before they are nominated. I do not 
want private assurances; I do not seek them. I do not want forecasts 
about future votes or future behavior because, frankly, I wouldn't 
believe them. I don't want promises of any sort. I want evidence that 
Supreme Court nominees will obey the Constitution and the law. I want 
to see in the record clear acknowledgement that any nominee understands 
Roe to be the travesty that it is. If that record is not there, then I 
will not support the nomination. I don't care who does the nominating.
  Some will say that this is yesterday's battle; that we should just 
accept Roe and move on; that today's Supreme Court is the best we could 
possibly hope for, to which I say that every single life is worth 
fighting for. I will not accept failure, and I will not accept defeat. 
I take this stand because I believe it is what justice and fidelity to 
the law requires in our time of me and of those who would exercise the 
awesome power of judicial review entrusted to Justices in article III 
of our Constitution.
  I also believe it is what the Republican Party owes the millions of 
Americans who have made this cause the reason for their vote for many 
years--

[[Page S4622]]

these men and women of good will and faith who labor still day in and 
day out, rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, working for that 
time when justice will be done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I would say that the views expressed by 
the good Senator from Missouri are not views widely shared by people in 
this country. And to compare the decisions in Plessy v. Ferguson and 
the Dred Scott decisions with the Roe decision dishonors the memory of 
Congressman John Lewis, who only today was buried, put to rest in 
Georgia.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. President, the COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the systemic 
racial inequities, inequalities in our healthcare system.
  While the virus has touched Americans of every race and nationality, 
it disproportionately impacts people of color. We all know that. People 
of color make up just 40 percent of our country's population but 
account for over 60 percent of all coronavirus cases and 50 percent of 
deaths from coronavirus.
  These inequities manifest themselves differently in each of our 
States. In Hawaii, for example, we are seeing pronounced disparities 
among our Pacific Islander community and particularly among citizens of 
the Freely Associated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and 
Palau. I am focusing my remarks on this vibrant community today because 
our country has rarely done right by them. Let me give you some 
background.
  After liberating their territory in World War II, the United States 
administered the Trust Territory of the Pacific--which includes what 
are now the Freely Associated States--for nearly 40 years. Even in the 
most generous characterization, the United States failed to live up to 
its trust obligations to promote the political, social, and economic 
development of the region.

  In addition to chronically underfunding social programs like 
healthcare and education, the United States used the Marshall Islands 
as a base for dozens of nuclear tests over a 12-year period, from 1946 
to 1958, including the 15-megaton Castle Bravo--the largest 
thermonuclear device ever detonated by the United States. Decades 
later, the citizens of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands continued to 
suffer generational health consequences with substantially increased 
rates of cancer, birth defects, and miscarriages.
  In 1986, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 
Marshall Islands achieved independence and formally entered into 
Compacts of Free Association, COFA, with the United States. Palau 
followed in 1994. Under the terms of these compacts, these three 
countries provide the U.S. military with exclusive access to their 
strategically situated lands in exchange for security guarantees, 
economic and financial assistance, and the right of their citizens to 
travel, work, and live in the United States without having visas.
  It is difficult to overstate the importance of the compacts to our 
strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific region. In a Senate Armed 
Services Committee hearing last year, U.S. INDOPACOM Commander ADM 
Philip Davidson succinctly noted how the compact nations ``contribute 
way out of proportion to their population in our defense.'' This is 
particularly true with respect to China, wherein our compacts with 
these island nations enable us to literally hold the line against 
aggressive Chinese economic and military expansion throughout Oceania.
  If we are to ensure a free and open Indo-Pacific, we must treat the 
compact nations with the respect they deserve. First and foremost, this 
means keeping the promises we have made to these partners, especially 
on healthcare. Our initial compact agreements stipulated that COFA 
citizens were eligible for a range of Federal programs as ``permanently 
residing under color of law,'' including Medicaid coverage. The so-
called welfare reform law of 1996, however, resulted in COFA citizens' 
suddenly becoming ineligible for Medicaid and other Federal programs 
even as they may live in the United States legally and indefinitely.
  I have done some research as to what happened in the welfare reform 
law, and there is absolutely nothing in the legislative history of that 
law to indicate why, suddenly, COFA citizens were not eligible for 
Medicaid coverage. According to a report from the University of Hawaii 
Economic Research Organization, the exclusion of COFA citizens from 
Medicaid increased the mortality rate of COFA citizens by 20 percent 
and contributed to significant public health issues in my home State of 
Hawaii.
  I have led the fight to pass bipartisan legislation to restore 
Medicaid eligibility for COFA citizens throughout my time in the 
Senate, and we have come close to righting this wrong on several 
occasions, including in the bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill 
that the Senate passed in 2013.
  The COVID-19 pandemic injects a new urgency into this effort. All 
across the country, COFA citizens work in essential industries like 
meat processing, food service, and custodial services. These jobs put 
COFA citizens at an increased risk, and they are suffering 
disproportionately from COVID-19 as a result.
  In Hawaii, Pacific Islanders make up about 4 percent of our 
population but account for nearly a quarter of our COVID-19 cases. In 
northwest Arkansas, the Marshallese make up no more than 3 percent of 
the population but have suffered half the deaths. In Dubuque, IA, the 
Marshallese community accounts for more than a third of the city's 
COVID-19 deaths despite their making up only about 1 percent of the 
city's population.
  A number of factors drives these disparities, but reduced access to 
healthcare certainly isn't helping. In fact, it is hurting a lot. The 
Government Accountability Office estimates that 14 percent of COFA 
citizens in Hawaii lack health insurance--nearly three times the 
State's average. Nationwide, 22 percent of COFA citizens are uninsured.
  In the absence of restored Medicaid eligibility, which would 
certainly lower the number of uninsured COFA citizens, our community 
health centers are, once again, stepping up. My conversations earlier 
this month with representatives from Kokua Kalihi Valley Comprehensive 
Family Services and West Hawaii Community Health Center reinforced the 
crucial role these community health centers play in building reciprocal 
trust with the communities they serve. Both community health centers 
have been working closely with COFA citizens to combat stigma and fear 
by reaching out directly to the community to encourage them to seek 
care. This includes providing testing and outreach services in multiple 
languages. They have also been coordinating food deliveries to 
families, including to COFA citizens who are quarantining at home, and 
assisting some families with alternate housing arrangements so they can 
isolate away from healthy family members.
  Our health centers are doing exceptional work with COFA citizens, and 
I strongly support providing them robust funding in the next COVID-19 
relief bill.
  Most importantly, we need to uphold our commitment to the compact 
nations and restore Medicaid eligibility for COFA citizens who are 
legally in our country. We can do that by including my Covering our FAS 
Allies Act to restore Medicaid eligibility for COFA citizens in the 
next COVID relief bill. In the Heroes Act, the House has already 
restored eligibility to this population, and it is time for the Senate 
to join them in righting an historic wrong.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________